Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords](By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords](By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETARY BILL [Lords](By Order)

RIVER HUMBER (UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS)BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 11 March.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 11 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Excise Duty

Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the impact on British industry of rates of excise duty.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): My right hon. Friend has received a considerable number of representations on Budget matters.

Mr. Pike: Recognising the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to jobs in Scotland and to the balance of payments, may I ask what the Government will do to ensure that that industry does not continue to be greatly disadvantaged by comparison with the wine industry? Are we going to allow it to be destroyed?

Mr. Nelson: The Government acknowledge the importance of that industry and representations have been made to my right hon. Friend by the Scotch whisky industry and associations. I cannot, of course, anticipate anything that might be in the Budget.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend accept that the premium exporting industry of Scotland is the Scotch whisky industry, which delivers £1.7 billion worth of exports every year? Given the 10 per cent. reduction in United Kingdom sales of Scotch whisky in recent times, is not there good reason carefully to examine the relationship between the excise duties on whisky and those on other drinks?

Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is a tireless champion of the industry. The point that he has made today has been well made by the industry to my right hon. Friend and I am sure that he will take full account of those representations.

Dr. Marek: Does the Minister accept that there is a vast haemorrhage of money from the Treasury because of the distortions caused by cross-border trade as a result of differing excise duties in the United Kingdom and in mainland Europe? Can he accept as Government policy a process of harmonisation of those rates to get rid of the cross-border distortions?

Mr. Nelson: The Government always accepted that a cost would be involved in the single market, but it involves opportunities as well. The Government have undoubtedly taken measures to reduce yield loss through cross-border trading, including the deployment of about 130 Customs and Excise officers to inland surveillance, and from the beginning of this year there will be a considerabily increased number of prosecutions as a result of arrests.

Trade Barriers

Mr. Opphenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the economic cost of trade barriers.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): Trade barriers impose unnecessary costs on both industry and consumers and also deprive them of choice.


They impede the efficiency of the economy by distorting market mechanisms. A rapid, comprehensive solution to the GATT round would provide a non-inflationary stimulus to the world economy.

Mr. Oppenheim: Of all the huge burden of protected industries that bear down on us all as a result of EC or national actions, is not the one whose extra costs particularly hit poorer people—because they spend proportionately more of their incomes on it—and which causes immense injury to virtually every other industry in the country—because they all have to pay over the odds for its product—and which severely damages the environment and people's health—because it produces excessive carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions —(Interruption.] I can see that Opposition Members finally recognise that I am referring to the coal industry. There is absolutely no excuse to extend the many decades of protection that the coal industry has enjoyed at the expense of virtually every other industry in the country.

Mr. Portillo: The Government must and will take seriously the commitments on the environment that they made at Rio. We must, of course, be extremely wary of driving up the price of electricity to our industrial users, because that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. About 90 per cent. of the coal used in power stations in this country is produced in the United Kingdom. The problem of the coal industry is not predominantly one of import penetration: it is one of collapse of demand.

Mr. Livingstone: Does the Minister agree that although trade barriers damage our balance of payments, much worse damage has resulted from neglect of our industrial base? Does he agree with the Prime Minister that that was a great mistake? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to rebuild our manufacturing industry?

Mr. Portillo: During the 1980s, manufacturing productivity in Britain grew faster than in any other country in the G7, the group of the richest countries. Our manufacturing production reached its record position in 1990. During the 1980s we stabilised our share of world trade after a decade in which it had been falling. These are all remarkable achievements. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer went further in the autumn statement in providing some encouragement to manufacturing industry—for instance, by the scrapping of car tax and by providing extra money to the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important aspect of free trade is the free movement of capital? Does he agree also that the European Community should not do anything to discourage foreign investment in Europe, bearing in mind the large amount of such investment that is coming to Britain, such as Toyota in Derbyshire and Nissan in Sunderland?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Toyota is investing £700 million at Burnaston, near Derby. Nissan is expected to invest £885 million by the end of the year and to create 4,600 jobs in Sunderland. There is also the Toyota investment that is taking place at Shotton, which will provide 300 jobs. The plant will produce 200,000 engines a year and represents an investment of

£140 million. The free movement of capital is important and the conditions that make Britain such an attractive place for inward investment must be sustained.

House Prices

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current house prices in London and the south east.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I am pleased to say that recent developments are consistent with the view expressed by my right hon. Friend in the autumn statement that the housing market should start to recover this year.

Mr. Gerrard: Is the Minister aware that in east London three out of every five people who have bought houses in the past four years have a mortgage that is greater than the current price of their houses and that across Greater London nearly 40 per cent. of those who are in mortgage arrears have a mortgage that is at least £10,000 more than the value of their property? Does he accept that that is the inevitable result of a rundown economy with mass unemployment? When can householders expect to see sufficient recovery for their house values to be restored?

Mr. Dorrell: I recognise that at the end of 1992 there was a welcome decline in the rate of repossessions as a result of the action that the Government took at the end of 1991 to make it easier for people who encountered mortgage difficulties to stay in their houses. I welcome the words of Mr. Michael Jones, the president of the National Association of Estate Agents. Referring to a survey that that organisation had conducted, he said:
There can be no doubt that recovery is now underway.
I also welcome the fact that the chief executive of Bryant Homes said that, in his view, there was a
strong pattern of recovery showing through.
Those are things which I hoped Opposition Members would welcome.

Mr. Evennett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that mortgage rates are the lowest for a generation? That is a real achievement and one which should help house buyers in London and Greater London to deal with their problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that there were considerably fewer repossessions last year than in the past few years? Those are real achievements. We should start talking up the economy, not down.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is especially right to draw attention to the benefits to the housing market that stem from the fact that mortgage rates are now at their lowest level for 25 years. They are not academic benefits. They are manifesting themselves in the sales of house builders in the first two months of this year, which are 20 per cent. up on the same period last year. The number of people viewing new houses on building sites is 15 per cent. up on the same period last year. I hope that those who are willing to look will welcome these signs of recovery.

Mr. Darling: Does the Minister accept that the signs of recovery are fragile and that one of the biggest obstacles to recovery in the housing market is unemployment and fear of unemployment, which is likely to subsist for some considerable time? Does he further accept that one of the problems in the housing market in London and the


south-east of England is poor transport links? Can he confirm that crossrail and the other rail projects announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement are to be axed?

Mr. Dorrell: The biggest threat to recovery in the housing market is the activities of those who appear to have a vested interest in continuing to talk down the housing market. There is clear evidence for those who are willing to look at the signs that the market is beginning to recover. I should have hoped that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen would welcome that.

Mr. Ottaway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the mortgage interest rate has a large impact on house prices? There are many low-cost mortgages on the market, but is he aware that many building societies make it a condition of borrowing that the borrower takes out the lender's in-house insurance policy? That tends to be prohibitively expensive and distorts the advantage that may be gained by low interest rates. Will my hon. Friend investigate that practice?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I share his commitment to ensuring that all aspects of the housing market work efficiently to the benefit of the consumer of housing—the owner-occupier.

Trade Deficit

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps he intends to take to reduce the balance of trade deficit.

Mr. Portillo: Our traders are helped by low inflation, which is now at its lowest level for 25 years and below the European Community average. Our competitiveness has improved. Our annual unit wage costs are not rising. By contrast, they are rising by over 9 per cent. in Germany and in Japan. We have announced extra support for ECGD to help exporters.

Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Minister admit that the forecast trade deficit is likely to be about £15.5 billion? What a pathetic bunch this lot of Ministers are. Most of them come from the belly of the banking establishment, yet they have got Britain in hock. Who does the Minister blame for this mess? Does he, like St. John on the road to Maastricht, blame Lady Thatcher, or is he tied to her apronstrings? If he wants to alter Britain's balance of payments deficit, why does not he save £600 million by stopping the importation of coal, starting to export coal and saving the 31 pits? If he does that, he will turn the balance of payment deficits round.

Mr. Portillo: I had a feeling that the hon. Gentleman might mention my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher. I know that he misses her greatly in this place. They were a great double act in their day. But the hon. Gentleman really should not be so pessimistic. We predict an increase in competitiveness for Britain of about 16 per cent. in 1993. That is made up of the lower exchange rate and, in particular, our very good performance on unit wage costs. As I pointed out earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), only a small proportion of coal is imported—about 10 per cent. of what is used in power stations. That is not the problem. The problem is the collapse in demand.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a significant proportion of imports into Britain is tied 1.0 production by the subsidiaries of foreign companies manufacturing in Britain and that we should increase the amount of our direct investment overseas, as distinct from stock market investment, so that we can increase the extent of our tied exports?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend must be right, at least in the short term. But I hope that, as companies establish themselves in Britain and as their investment reaches maturity, an increasing amount of their sourcing will be done from the United Kingdom. I heartily agree with my hon. Friend that in our overseas portfolio we want a good balance between investment in manufacturing and services and investment in stock markets abroad. There should be a balance of all those elements and of others as well.

Mr. Andrew Smith: British shipping contributes a net £2·3 billion a year to our balance of payments and a further net £1·5 billion in related services, but every month, as a consequence of the Government's failure to act to enable it to compete fairly with overseas operators, major lines are ceasing to trade, ships are being registered under the flags of other countries and British crews are being replaced and are losing their jobs. Will the Government urgently introduce measures to assist the competitiveness of the industry, before this vital part of our maritime heritage and of our economy is destroyed and our balance of payments plunged still further into deficit?

Mr. Portillo: The shipping industry is important to the British economy. Despite the gloom that was evinced by the hon. Gentleman, the Government have taken a number of steps to help the industry, which has been in a position to respond to the needs of national defence when it has been required to do so. At this stage, it would be unwise for me to say anything that might appear to prejudice the Budget.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of t he Exchequer how many companies were registered for VAT in 1979 and at the most recent available date.

Mr. Dorrell: At the end of 1979, 1.3 million businesses were registered for VAT. The latest figure available on a comparable basis is for the end of 1991, when the figure was 1·7 million businesses.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures show the resilience and remarkable entrepreneurial vitality of British industry? Rover has not only experienced a significant increase in sales recently, but has shown a remarkably flexible attitude to its work force. In the past six weeks, shop-floor workers have sold no fewer than 3,000 cars. Is not such dynamism in stark contrast to the purveyors of doom and gloom on the Opposition Benches, who glory in talking down British industry?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, first, to draw attention to figures published today by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which record that in the past three months motor sales were up by 7 per cent. on the previous three months and up by 16 per cent. on the same period last year and, secondly, to the fact that the


mix of policies that the Government have pursued means that 31 per cent. more businesses are now registered and active than when we took office in 1979.

Mr. Milburn: What is the Minister's message to the 4,737 firms in the north-east that were driven out of business last year as a result of his policies? Does he recognise that the initiative and hard work of people who run small businesses have been betrayed by his Government's broken promise of an economic recovery? When will he act to unlock the skills, potential and enterprise of British people instead of laying them to waste?

Mr. Dorrell: Every insolvency is a tragedy for those involved. We clearly want to avoid that and to create circumstances in which the number of insolvencies is reduced. I should have hoped that, in presenting a balanced picture, the hon. Gentleman might at least pause to reflect that even in 1991, which was a year of business difficulty, substantially more businesses were created in Britain than in any year when the Labour party was in power in the 1970s.

Mr. Butcher: May I persuade my hon. Friend to seek a special derogation from Brussels to raise the VAT threshold to £100,000, as the collection of VAT from a large number of small companies raises a small sum and incurs huge costs, whereas collecting from the bigger companies raises the bulk of the money at a small cost? This would do much for job creation at a time when we are looking for optimistic signs and recovery.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes another interesting Budget representation. He has less than a fortnight to wait and see whether it will be acted on.

Mr. Tipping: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the VAT burden that charities face.

Mr. Nelson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a great number of representations on behalf of charities, as is normal before every Budget.

Mr. Tipping: In view of the strength of public concern reflected in the letters in Ministers' and hon. Members' postbags about the burden of value added tax on the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other charities that perform services that would otherwise fall on public authorities, will the Minister give urgent consideration to ways of lifting that tax on voluntary effort?

Mr. Nelson: Representing a coastal constituency myself, I am very conscious of the vital role and valour of the RNLI, but it already receives special tax treatment through zero rates on a number of purchases, including lifeboats and carriage equipment, and on the construction, repair and maintenance of slipways. That special treatment is worth about £3 million a year to the RNLI. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, I cannot, of course, comment further on any representations made before the Budget.

Sir John Hannam: In receiving representations from the various charitable organisations about their VAT, has my hon. Friend taken on board the fact that, in providing valuable services across a range of activities, local authorities and commercial companies are able to recover

VAT, whereas charities are not? Will he therefore consider the proposal for a VAT refund system for the services that they provide?

Mr. Nelson: All representations are carefully considered before the Budget. Charities pay VAT on approximately one third of their expenditure, whereas the public pay it on about half. I do not think that my hon. Friend would want me to comment further today.

Mr. Wigley: May I support the pleas made on behalf of the lifeboat and disablement charities? The fact that charities pay VAT on a third of their expenditure is no excuse for not considering alleviating the entirety of the burden on such organisations. Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that this time of financial difficulty, when it is hard to raise money, is absolutely the wrong time for the burden of taxation to be carried by organisations that will probably bear more than their share of public responsibilities, especially when community care develops from April? Please will the Minister reconsider?

Mr. Nelson: I hear clearly what the hon. Gentleman says, but perhaps he will allow me to make the point that since the Government took office, a series of measures have been introduced to encourage charitable giving and charities now enjoy tax relief in excess of £1 billion a year. We have a creditable record, but we shall consider representations.

Inflation

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequyer if he will make a statement on the effects of his policy on the rate of inflation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): Our policies have brought the rate of inflation down to its lowest level for 25 years. Keeping underlying inflation inside the range of 1 to 4 per cent. over the remainder of this Parliament will represent a decisive breakthrough to permanently lower inflation.

Mr. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lowest inflation rate for a quarter of a century is the best possible news for the future of the British economy? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will take no risks with the future of inflation, and that they will do all they can to ensure that it stays low and stable and in its target range?

Mr. Lamont: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We fought a long battle to get inflation down, criticised all the time by the Labour party. We believe unambiguously that low inflation is very important for our trade, for manufacturing and for confidence for businesses. The fact that we have a level of inflation below the average of the European Community augurs extremely well for this country.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Now that the Chancellor appears to be accepting some credit for the present inflation rate, will he accept responsibility for the years of high inflation, low growth and mass unemployment, and apologise to the British people for those policies?

Mr. Lamont: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the 1980s, he must at least be aware that we reduced inflation decisively during the 1980s. Bringing it down created jobs


and employment. Low inflation has been one of the Government's major achievements and we intend to stick with our policy of keeping it down.

Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a number of us receive many letters from old-age pensioners and others on fixed incomes who are anxious about low interest rates. Will he bear it in mind that it is easy to explain to them that low inflation is their friend, provided that the costs of utilities such as railways and water do not rise well beyond the rate of inflation? Will he continue to bear down on those organisations to ensure that they keep their prices under control?

Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows, prices in individual utilities are matters for the regulator, but I agree that low inflation matters more to pensioners, savers and people on fixed incomes than to any other section of the community. We intend to honour our promises and pledges to them, and to keep inflation down. My hon. Friend made an interesting point about the level of interest rates and I note carefully what he said. Even in the Treasury our postbag on interest rates, which is always large, is now split at least 50:50 in terms of higher rather than lower interest rates.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Does not every expert forecast say that during the year, despite everything that the Chancellor says, inflation and unemployment will rise? Given that the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would not devalue, and then did, promised that he would balance the budget, and then did not, and promised a recovery that has never arrived, has not his only consistent policy on inflation been his view that unemployment is a "price well worth paying"? Will he tell us whether he believes that unemployment will rise during the coming year—yes or no?

Mr. Lamont: I am extremely interested to hear that at long last the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the word "inflation". He has made speech after speech, but has never before mentioned that word. That is not surprising, because none of his policies has ever shown the slightest appreciation of the problem of inflation, and the hon. Gentleman has never shown the slightest interest in bringing inflation down. He refers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] If the Opposition would stop shouting me down, I would answer the hon. Gentleman's question. He referred to the depreciation of sterling and the effect that that would have on the underlying rate of inflation. He will know that the depreciation has not led to an increase in inflation. We believe that the outlook in that respect is better than many commentators have said. The hon. Gentleman also referred to unemployment. I shall make it crystal clear to him that I want to see unemployment reduced—of course I do—but that I totally despise his attitude when he comes to the House with no recognition of the fact that unemployment on the continent of Europe, in the European Community, is forecast to rise beyond 11 per cent. Can the hon. Gentleman name one major country in which unemployment has not increased during the past year? There is not one.

Retail Prices

Mr. Stephen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in retail prices during the month of January.

Mr. Portillo: Between December and January the retail prices index fell by 0.9 per cent. This was the largest monthly fall recorded for nearly 35 years.

Mr. Stephen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he accept that what the economy of this country needs is low inflation, low taxes, moderate interest rates and a competitive exchange rate? It does not need a policy of raiding our constituents' pockets and spending their money, which is the only policy ever offered by the Opposition parties.

Mr. Portillo: The list of features with which my hon. Friend began his supplementary question is absolutely right. I would add that the productivity performance of manufacturing industry is extremely encouraging and that our competitiveness is shown not only in the exchange rate but in our performance on wage unit costs. Those are very encouraging features. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the Labour party simply does not understand such matters and still looks to spend more money and to raise taxes considerably, believing that recovery can somehow be stimulated by higher spending. That is a delusion.

Ms. Harman: Does the Chief Secretary not realise that what this country also needs is investment in training and in industry? Does he not understand the anger that there will be in this country at the fact that millions of pounds of European Community money earmarked for Britain, for training and investment in the regions, will not come here because the Government simply have not applied for it?

Mr. Portillo: We seem to be rather a long way from the subject of prices. Nevertheless, I have no reason to believe that there will be any difficulty in providing the public expenditure cover that the European Community wants for European regional development fund grants. We have made pledges, we made provision in the public expenditure survey, and I imagine that Sir John Kerr will be in a position to write to Mr. Milian in the near future. I see no difficulty whatsoever.

Mr. Sykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have heard more than the usual amount of nonsense from the little Clintons opposite—[Interruption.] —especially from Bolsover's answer to Hillary Clinton? If Opposition Members were really interested in helping the jobless they would abandon inflationary policies such as the minimum wage and the social chapter.

Mr. Portillo: On the last part of his question, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is difficult to imagine policies that would be more destructive of jobs than are the minimum wage and the social chapter. The President of the United States has recognised the need to address his country's deficit. In the context of the United Kingdom, so far as I remember, that has never been recognised by the Labour party.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Minister subscribe to the old economic adage that any fool can get inflation down if he is prepared to tolerate a high enough level of unemployment?

Mr. Portillo: I do not know whether that is meant to explain why the last Labour Government produced inflation at a rate of 27 per cent. If so, it is a rather poor explanation.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarkable figure for retail price inflation, combined with the very low figure for unit wage costs and the over-capacity in the property market and much of industry, suggests that we really are on top of inflation now and emphasises the importance of ensuring that, over the next two years, interest rates will be determined by domestic monetary conditions and not by reference to economies that are not in step with our own?

Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made very clear the range of conditions that he will examine to determine the appropriate level of interest rates. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are significant disinflationary pressures in the economy. For example, the money supply—M4—is below the monitoring range at present and we have seen falling house prices. However, I should caution my hon. Friend that it is always easy, when inflation has been brought down, to believe that it does not matter. Inflation does matter, not least from the point of view of our competitiveness.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about VAT being imposed on food, books and newspapers.

Mr. Nelson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations, and these will be considered very carefully in the period leading up to the Budget. However, I am sure that the House will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

Mr. Winnick: Inappropriate or otherwise, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that there would be no possible justification for a Tory tax on food, which would hit particularly hard the people in low-income households —the very people who have suffered enough under the Tory Administration? Would not the imposition of VAT on books and magazines break a clear pledge given by Ministers over the past few years?

Mr. Nelson: I cannot comment on what may or may not be in the Budget, but I can comment on an extraordinary statement last July by the Labour economic spokesman Lord Desai, who proposed that VAT should be applied at the full rate to all zero-rated items. Do the Opposition repudiate that?

Sir Terence Higgins: Is it not the case that the original structure of VAT, with a single positive rate and a zero rate for items of particular importance to families on low incomes, has stood the test of time? It would be wrong to alter that for short-term, revenue-raising purposes, particularly as narrowing the range of zero rating would result in greater pressure, especially from the European Community, to get rid of zero rating altogether.

Mr. Nelson: I hear very well what my right hon. Friend says. I am sure that he shares my view that the Government secured a very important agreement with the European Commission and other member states, which allowed for the retention of our current zero rates.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am sure that the whole House has noticed that the Government's pledges about not raising or extending the range of VAT have got more feeble as the Budget gets closer. Is the Minister aware that extending the VAT base to all currently zero-rated categories would add £7 per week to the budget of the poorest 10 per cent. of households, which is 7 per cent. of their average household income? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that whatever measures the Government bring forward will take into account the interests of the poor and that they will not pass on to the poorest 10 per cent. of households the deficit reduction measures that they are contemplating?

Mr. Nelson: What the hon. Gentleman has just complained about is exactly what his noble Friend proposed on behalf of the Labour party last year. I can give him the assurance that all these matters are carefully taken into account in assessing the Budget strategy.

Retail Sales

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to visit Hendon South to meet the Golders Green chamber of commerce to discuss the level of retail sales.

Mr. Lamont: I have no plans at present to visit the Golders Green chamber of commerce. To the best of my knowledge, I have received no such invitation. If I did so, however, I should be pleased to tell the chamber of commerce that the volume of retail sales in the three months to January has never been higher.

Mr. Marshall: Welcome as the increase in retail sales is, does my right hon. Friend accept that the level of consumer confidence is still a fragile plant which could be anaesthetised for some months if VAT were imposed on food?

Mr. Lamont: I have noted my hon. Friend's comment.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the imposition of VAT.

Mr. Nelson: Many representations have been received, and these will be considered in the run-up to the Budget.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Minister received any representations from the bloodstock industry about VAT? Is he aware of the absurdity of the situation in which it is profitable to take horses to Ireland, leave them on the tarmac for 30 minutes to complete the transaction at the lower rates of VAT there and then fly them back to this country? Is he further aware that the French Government have managed to get a derogation from the VAT regime to protect their bloodstock industry? When will the Government do the same for the United Kingdom industry?

Mr. Nelson: I have taken careful note of what the hon. Gentleman says. He will be aware that negotiations are taking place between Customs and Excise and the Jockey Club. I hope that they will come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government have acted imaginatively over the years to ease the burden of tax on charities? Will he bear in mind, however, that the beneficial effects of those changes will be significantly undone if charities have to pay VAT on items that are currently zero rated? Will he listen sympathetically and respond positively to the calls to relieve charities of their existing burden of VAT?

Mr. Nelson: The Government always listen sympathetically on such matters.

Mr. Hall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total yield from VAT in 1978–79; and what is the expected total yield for 1992–93 in cash and in 1992–93 prices.

Mr. Dorrell: The yield from VAT in 1978–79 was £4·8 billion, which is worth £13·2 billion at today's prices. The expected yield for the current year is £37·7 billion.

Mr. Hall: The House will be aware that since 1979 the Tory Government have put up VAT from 8 to 17·5 per cent. and have increased the number of goods covered by VAT 14 times. That has added to the increased tax burden. Will the Minister confirm that if VAT is put on books, periodicals and newspapers, it will be in breach of Tory party election pledges, but in line with Tory actions in government?

Mr. Derrell: I do not intend to say anything about what might happen in my right hon. Friend's Budget, but it is passing strange that the Government should be under attack for pursuing precisely the policy that they always said they would pursue—that within a constant tax burden they would shift the burden from income to expenditure. That is what we said we would do, and that is what we have done.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend, although enjoying purdah at the moment, note that although special representations are being made about VAT, he and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor should maintain maximum flexibility? Many of us believe that broader-based VAT is the right way forward, with special categories, especially for the poor, which could be targeted in other ways. We want the maximum flexibility and we must bear in mind that tightening the tax regime at present is the right policy, given our much looser monetary conditions.

Mr. Dorrell: I will not put up a vigorous defence against my hon. Friend's suggestion that Front-Bench Members should retain room for flexibility.

Public Expenditure Reviews

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria were used to select the four Government Departments to be included in the public expenditure reviews.

Mr. Portillo: The Government will be reviewing the expenditure of every Department before the end of this

Parliament. The four Departments chosen to start the review process are among the largest and the fastest growing.

Mr. Prentice: Is there not a case, notwithstanding "Options for Change", for including defence in the public expenditure reviews, especially since the Financial Times tells us that this economically battered nation spends 4 per cent. of its gross domestic product on defence, compared with 3·4 per cent. by France and 2·2 per cent. by Germany? Is there not a case for the Government paying heed to the injunctions of the Financial Times?

Mr. Portillo: "Options for Change" was a very important review indeed, and I do not think that it is yet timely to go back over that. The hon. Gentleman would be making a reasonable point if he were to say that we should always keep our defence spending under review and in line with our world commitments. On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman is a former leader of the Fulham and Hammersmith council, which doubled the rates overnight, I am loth to take lectures on public spending from him.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Jackson: Does the Prime Minister recall telling Parliament in 1989:
I take my own share of responsibility…It is not something I seek to heap upon my predecessor"?
Is he today going to blame Baroness Thatcher for the disastrous damage done to manufacturing industry while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: As it happens, my right hon. and noble Friend did more to help British industry than the Labour party has ever done. If the hon. Lady would like an illustration of that, in the 1980s the number of manufacturing companies rose from 144,000 to 165,000. I will provide the hon. Lady with a long list of other improvements, should she wish to have it.

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rowe: In every year of this Conservative Government the Home Office has paid for and researched very carefully experiments using voluntary organisations and others to rehabilitate young offenders. That research has consistently demonstrated a very much better rate of recovery than any other method used. [Interruption.] Every time these experiments have shown—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman. I have heard statements, but no question. I now need a question.

Mr. Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every time these experiments are shown to be a success the Home Office funding is withdrawn? Will he make certain that, when such experiments are shown to be successful, Government expenditure is maintained to enable them to continue?

The Prime Minister: The Home Office always monitors the performance of the projects that it funds to ensure the value for money and efficiency of those projects. Where the projects are efficient, there is a possibility of extending funding for longer than the three-year period.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Prime Minister explain what he meant when he said that he was a minority in his predecessor's Administration? Is it not deeply revealing about the Prime Minister that, having run out of excuses for the abject failure of his Government's economic policies, he is now trying to pin the blame on his predecessor, in whose Government he was responsible for economic policy both as Chief Secretary and as Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very predictable. He is also misled yet again by newspaper reports, having not read the transcript of the interview. He really should give up reading newspapers; I recommend it to him. If he had read the source material, he would have read that the question put to me was that the idea got about in the 1980s that making things was not so important. It was not my view, not my right hon. and noble Friend's view, and not the view of the then Government.

Mr. John Smith: The Prime Minister surely cannot complain about being misrepresented in interviews that he himself gives. Is he aware that in that interview he complained about what he called an inheritance of 15 per cent. interest rates and 11 per cent. inflation? Who does he think was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the preceding years? If we are to make sense of the Prime Minister, does he not understand that he means that he inherited them from himself?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being very slow. I shall explain the whole matter to him again. I suggest that he reads the transcript of the interview. As I explained to him a moment ago, I disagreed with the view put to me by the interviewer, as would my right hon. and noble Friend have disagreed with it. So far as interest rates are concerned, I was referring to the legacy of the recession that we are curing and which has now hit every other nation in Europe.

Mr. John Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why a Chancellor of the Exchequer has nothing to do with a recession that occurs in his period of office? Since he has been Prime Minister for more than two years, and since the right hon. and noble Lady is no longer here, why are we still losing 25,000 jobs every month in manufacturing industry and £136 billion in investment under his Administration? It has nothing to do with anyone else.

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman utterly fails to realise—which is why he remains on the Opposition Benches—is that what needs to be done to put this country in the right position for growth is what we have done. The last time there was 1·7 per cent.

inflation was more than 25 years ago. Interest rates are now lower than anywhere else in the European Community.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were more aware of the position of manufacturing, he would know that exports are up on manufacturing. Capital spending on manufacturing is up. Compared with 10 years ago, there is exceptional growth in engineering, chemicals and other manufacturing. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop talking this country down and start talking it up?

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his sensible policies on the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war are amply confirmed by current events?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The important matter in the Bosnian war is to give every support one can to the peace talks in New York. They are crucial. They are the only realistic way of achieving real peace, and I very much welcome the Muslim agreement to a document on the cessation of hostilities. There still remains great difficulty in getting agreement on the map, but it is essential that all parties remain at those negotiations and negotiate seriously until we have a satisfactory agreement and the end of this bitter and nasty conflict.

Mr. Leighton: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Leighton: No one has spoken more graphically and poignantly about the evils of unemployment than the Prime Minister. Does he recall talking about what he called his "dole hell", searching for work every day when he was unemployed for 12 months as a 19-year-old in Brixton? Is he aware that in 1962 there was one unemployed person for each vacancy but now there are hundreds? Does he agree that a full employment society is a good society, but that the mass unemployment society over which he is presiding is an evil society? Now that he is Prime Minister, what steps will he take to put the aim of full employment at the top of his agenda?

The Prime Minister: The first essentials for making sure that we have a society that has full employment are low inflation, low interest rates and the right supply side policy for growth. The right way to make sure that we have skills is to put in place the training programmes that we have put in place, each one of which has been opposed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Lord Prior's comments yesterday that the conditions are now in place for British manufacturing exporters to perform better? Will he join me in congratulating the firms in north Hertfordshire that are doing just that, in particular Lucas CEL of Hitchin which is launching its new export product today?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am certainly happy to give my support to those particular projects. We have remarkable opportunities in front of us at the present time, as we find that we are hugely competitive in terms of the cuts in costs that we have seen in the past few years. We need to ensure that on


this occasion, even though we have captured export markets, we do not surrender those for the returning home market. We need to keep the domestic market and continue to press ahead with further export markets.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that the people and businesses of the south-west and especially Cornwall—the poorest county in the whole of the country—cannot be expected to pay the highest water and electricity prices? What hope can he offer those people of a fair deal, given that he has already told them that he will give them no special help?

The Prime Minister: I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks he will find that the water prices to which he refers are similar in other counties to those in the west country. There is a substantial need to improve the water quality and supply in the west country and also, not least because of the importance of the tourist industry, to improve the bathing waters and other tourist facilities. That is a significant reason for the present level of water charges.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 300 Members of this House and of the other place recently attended an exhibition of obscene material that had been seized under the Obscene Publications Act 1959? Is he aware that Members were deeply shocked by what they saw and believe that the Obscene Publications Act needs urgent review? Will he accept the invitation that I have written to him to view the material privately so that he may reach his own informed conclusion about what action needs to be taken to clean up this free market in filth?

The Prime Minister: I have had a report of the particular material to which my hon. Friend refers. I am aware of the nature of it and how offensive it will be to most Members of this House and most people in this country. I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to consider what options exist for taking action against it.

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Purchase: Does the Prime Minister realise that the people of the west midlands, once the workshop of the

world but where now more than a quarter of a million people have been made unemployed in the past 13 years, will take no comfort from the fact that he appears to have gone along with the loss of their jobs? Does he think that they will understand him a little less and condemn him a little more?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the historic importance of the west midlands to manufacturing. He has neglected to mention the assistance in the autumn statement on capital allowances, car tax —very important to the west midlands—and maintained capital expenditure. He has utterly overlooked the lead that this country has taken in seeking a solution to the general agreement on tariffs and trade round, which is vital to the west midlands. He has also overlooked the primary importance of the motor car industry, which was in disarray some years ago under his party's Government but is now a net exporter and increasingly profitable.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that new car registrations are up 16 per cent. compared with a year ago? Is that not good news? Does he not think it strange that every time the economic news is good, the faces opposite get longer? Is it not time the Opposition stopped talking this country down?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hen. Friend about that, and it is a point which I have made in recent days. The increase in car registration is welcome news. It is a continuing trend over recent months. The only people who benefit from talking Britain down are our competitors. I hope that that is understood by every right hon. and hon. Member.

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Prime Minister is right to give priority to the manufacturing sector of business in Britain, particularly small businesses, but what does he have in mind? Is he prepared to reduce the burden of rates which apply particularly to small businesses? Is he prepared, for instance, to allow small businesses to add statutory interest to bills that are overdue for undue periods of time? There is a long list of tangible things that the Prime Minister could do to give real physical expression to the words that he uttered recently in his interview in the national press. What tangible, concrete things has he in mind?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening a few moments ago, I listed a number of them to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). As to other matters, he must wait and see.

Honours

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the honours system and to announce some changes, which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen.
The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Would the Prime Minister allow me? Would those Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly? We want to continue with our business here.

The Prime Minister: Let me begin again for those hon. Members who may not have heard what I was saying in the hubbub.
With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the honours system and to announce some changes which have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen.
The award of honours for service and achievement has been a valued part of British life for centuries. It is the means by which we, as a nation, can show our respect and gratitude to those who have contributed most to our national life. Acts of courage, lives of sacrifice, inventiveness, generosity and commitment to others are formally recognised and acknowledged. It is rooted in our history, and given special value by the close personal attention which the sovereign has given to it. To retain its valued role in our national life, the honours system must, from time to time, be reviewed and renewed.
The present system has remained largely unchanged for 70 years, despite huge changes in national life. I have therefore been discussing with Her Majesty some changes that will, I believe, enjoy widespread support.
I wish to start by clarifying the circumstances in which honours awards should be made.
First, honours should be awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or exceptional service, over and above that which normally might be expected. Secondly, there should be different levels of award to reflect different levels of achievement. Thirdly, awards should not be automatic and follow simply as a result of doing a particular job. Fourthly, awards should place more emphasis on voluntary service.
I therefore propose to end the recommendation of honours where they are given solely by seniority or on appointment. In future, with one exception I shall turn to in a moment, there should be no assumption that honours will automatically be attached to particular posts in either the public or the private sector.
Public servants and office holders will, of course, still be eligible to receive honours, and many will qualify on merit, but the assumption that a particular post automatically carries an honour will end. Instead, awards will be open —on merit—to a wider range of individuals.
I intend that these principles should be applied throughout the civil service and the rest of the public sector, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence concur in respect of the foreign service and the armed forces.
I also intend the same principles to apply in the private sector. Many people give generously of their time, energy

and expertise to help their fellow citizens, and a more flexible system can take greater account of such contributions. While heads of particular organisations can no longer expect an honour just because their predecessor received one, they will, of course, continue to be eligible if their achievement and their service to the community merit it. I propose to continue making recommendations for political service, and I shall apply the same principles there, too.
I mentioned earlier one exception. The independence of the judiciary is fundamental to our legal system. Awards of honours should not be thought to depend upon approval of legal judgments. For that reason, I believe that High Court judges should continue to receive the traditional honour of a knighthood on appointment. This practice has preserved the independence of the Bench from the exercise of patronage for two centuries, and I believe it should continue.
I should now like to turn to specific awards where I have some changes to announce. The largest proportion by far of current awards are MBEs and BEMs, mainly for service to local communities. The distinction between service meriting the award of an MBE and that meriting a British Empire Medal has become increasingly tenuous. It can no longer be sustained. I therefore intend in future to increase the number of recommendations for MBEs and to discontinue recommending awards of BEMs. I should make it clear that this change will not affect existing holders of the BEM, who will of course retain their medals. These are, rightly, highly treasured personal possessions.
The change will also apply to the lists recommended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Governments of those Commonwealth countries that recommend British Empire Medals in their own lists have been informed of these proposals.
To end a similar distinction in the Imperial Service Order, I shall no longer make recommendations for awards of the ISO. Those considered to merit the award will instead receive OBEs. The associated Imperial Service Medal is a long-service medal awarded on retirement and will continue.
At present, those receiving the BEM do not attend a royal investiture. For the future, the Queen has graciously agreed to increase the number of investitures both at Buckingham palace and elsewhere in the country. This will enable the increased numbers receiving MBEs to attend a royal investiture, though the Queen will not be able to conduct all investitures herself. I realise, however, that some may value a local presentation which gives greater opportunity for friends and family to mark the occasion. Her Majesty has, therefore, agreed that those awarded MBEs, OBEs or CBEs may receive their honour from their lord lieutenant if they prefer. The choice will rest entirely with the recipient.
I turn now to military gallantry awards. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is separately conducting a review, and will be announcing his conclusions shortly. But there is one change I can announce today. At present, except for the Victoria Cross, awards for gallantry are linked to the rank of the recipient. Officers are eligable to receive crosses or equivalent decorations, but non-commissioned ranks are eligible only for medals. The time has come to end this distinction. In


future, the level of award will be determined by the part played by the individuals concerned, and the courage they displayed, without regard to their rank.
At present, the numbers and distribution of honours are reviewed every five years. However, I have requested that the next examination of these numbers be brought forward to the summer of this year. I have asked the review, first, to take greater account of the desirability of recognising work in the voluntary sector and service to the community; secondly, to look at the proportion of awards to state servants to ensure that it appropriately reflects changes in the role and the size of the home civil service, the diplomatic service and the armed forces.
Finally, I believe that the means of nomination for honours should be more widely known and more open. It is, at present, too haphazard. Nomination forms, setting out the type of information needed, have therefore been prepared. I will make sure that the forms are readily available both to members of the public and particularly to voluntary bodies and charities. I hope that this change will help increase the recognition of merit of all kinds.
The honours system has been with us for centuries and has a continuing and valued role to play in British life. I strongly support it, but it is right that it should periodically be examined. The changes that I have announced today mean that exceptional service or achievement will be more widely recognised; that greater importance will be given to voluntary service; that automatic honours will end; that the distinction between ranks in military operational gallantry awards will cease; that the bulk of honours in the half-yearly lists will be of a single, undifferentiated award, the MBE; that all recipients of honours will be invited to a royal investiture.
I shall report to the House in due course on the review of the numbers and distribution of honours, and I shall consider at that time whether further changes are needed.

Mr. John Smith: There will be widespread acceptance of the abolition of the distinction of rank in certain civilian awards and in decorations for gallantry. I think that we would all agree that the criteria for the award of an honour should be exceptional achievement or service to the public benefit. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to demonstrate that principle in practice.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it has been decided to retain the notion of an Order of the British Empire? Might it not at least have been changed to Commonwealth? Why has he retained political honours —the part of the system on which he was least forthcoming in his statement? Why do Conservative Governments—and only Conservative Governments—wish to use the honours system as a form of patronage for their political supporters? I observe that there is nothing haphazard about the award of political honours to the Conservative party. Has he no shame about the way in which eight Conservative Members of Parliament regularly and automatically collect knighthoods each year, for no other reason than that they are supporters of the ruling political party? If he really means what he says about stopping automatic honours, could he not usefully start with Conservative Members of Parliament?
Does the Prime Minister not think that the connection between awards of honours and donations by companies to the Conservative party is shoddy misuse of a system set up to recognise public service? If he really wants to reform

the honours system properly, ought he not to start by distinguishing political and financial support for the Conservative party from genuine public service?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the honours system will be judged by our public for its capacity to recognise the many acts of service and sacrifice made by ordinary citizens, and the more that that can be done, the more it will be found to be acceptable?

The Prime Minister: I made that last point entirely clear in my statement a few moments go. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his welcome for the principles of review and I am delighted that he was prepared to express them in the House. His specific questions included, first, why we should retain the title of the "British Empire". I accept that it is resonant of a previous era, but it has an historical pedigree, is respected and familiar, and I see no advantage or purpose in changing it. I believe that it is more important to review the criteria and eligibility for awards than to seek new names for them. There is also the practical point that the Order of the British Empire is still in use in a number of Commonwealth countries.
As for political honours, I see no reason why those who work in support of a political party should be excluded from recognition. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that view is also held privately by many people in his party, who would be only too grateful if he would recommend them. It means a great deal to people who work to sustain our democratic system and who might otherwise receive no recognition. I have no intention of abandoning the awarding of honours for political service.
As for donations by companies, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware of the activities of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. If he were, he would not have made the ill-judged remarks that he has just made.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Anyone with military experience knows that the heroism of the bravest and best usually goes unrecognised. In his examination of military honours, will my right hon. Friend urge the Defence Secretary to retain the Distinguished Service Order, which ensures recognition for officers who have demonstrated not only heroism under fire but an aptitude for command, thus combining both attributes effectively in Her Majesty's service?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is being taken into account by my right hon. and learned Friend in his review. He intends that awards for gallantry should no longer artificially distinguish between officers, who receive crosses, and other ranks, who receive medals.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the Prime Minister aware that his statement is welcome but disappointingly timid? Is that it, or does he have some other reforms in prospect? If this is the beginning and end of it, many people will regard him as having missed an opportunity and failed to live up to some of his own rhetoric about fundamentally reforming the system.
May I make two suggestions? Since the right hon. Gentleman has gone halfway towards simplifying the system, why not go the whole way and have a single honour with different grades and classifications to match


different merits? Secondly, and perhaps more important, why does not the Prime Minister choose this occasion to remove the honours system from the powers of patronage of the Prime Minister and the political system at large, and vest it instead in an independent commission, free of political influence and, from time to time, political abuse?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is stringent independent scrutiny of all honours before they are approved.
It has never been my view that we should fundamentally reform the system. It has been my view that we needed to bring it up to date so that it retains its credibility.
The right hon. Gentleman's concept of a single honour, no doubt with classes 1, 2, 3 and 4, is not one which would appeal to me.
As to whether there will be further changes, I said in my statement that at the end of the review in the summer I would consider, without commitment, whether further changes were necessary.

Sir Peter Tapsell: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. These interruptions are just a waste of time.

Sir Peter Tapsell: As an example, perhaps, of the somewhat haphazard way in which routine political honours are conferred, may I ask my right hon. Friend to whom the nomination papers that he has mentioned are to be posted? May I suggest that they should be sent to the lords lieutenant and not to Members of Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend understates his own distinction. The nomination papers can be submitted either to the lords lieutenant or to the honours section of 10 Downing street.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the history of the honours system is, as he says, very old, established by William the Conqueror when he took us into the common market in 1066? Baronetcies were introduced by James I and sold for £1,095 to raise money to send troops to Ulster. Is he further aware that Lloyd-George sold honours absolutely ruthlessly to boost his own political funds; and that the system suffers from two serious defects, neither of which he has turned his mind to at all?
The first is that the honours system is based on what a person is when he does something, not on what he does. That is to say, a senior civil servant may still get a high honour, but a sub-postmistress who has fought off bandits and been seriously wounded will get the lowest order of all. That is a defect to which the right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself because he still clings to the Order of the British Empire, one of the most recent honours, which was established in 1915 shortly before the British empire disappeared.
The second defect of the honours system is that the Crown lends to the Prime Minister and party leaders its authority to give political patronage. That patronage is ruthlessly used for political purposes. The most obvious

example is that the past 10 Prime Ministers put more than 800 people in another place, whereas it takes the entire British electorate to—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have to say that this is all very interesting but that it is time for questions. There are many hon. Members to be called on both sides of the House.

Mr. Benn: The patronage system is corrupt—everybody knows that—and it should be brought to an end. The system makes the country a laughing stock when people are bedecked in ribbons that have no meaning. In some instances, those who wear them are having old political debts repaid for reasons that are very disreputable.

The Prime Minister: I am surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. I doubt whether the first Lord Stansgate was corrupted by his honour in earlier days. William the Conqueror brought the common market here rather than the other way round. At least Lloyd-George did not use lavender paper—the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of that.
On the right hon. Gentleman's two substantial points, I have addressed myself directly to the first defect that he set out. I hope that, on re-reading my statement, he will see that. He removed himself from the other place to here, but there are many of us here who believe that the other place has an important role to play in our constitution—not least those on his Front Bench, who continue to nominate people to serve in it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I support my right hon. Friend in the general thrust of his proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I have not finished. Will he advise more senior colleagues than myself on the Government Benches whether they are more or less likely to get an honour, whatever the strong views that they may hold, if they support or oppose the Maastricht treaty? What honour does my right hon. Friend have in mind for the federalists of the Liberal party, who have gone into a coalition with him in an attempt to get that abhorrent treaty on the statute book? Would it be the Order of Delors Grand Cross?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity if, perhaps, on little else. I am always delighted to have his support, if for no other reason than its novelty.

Rev. Martin Smyth: My colleagues and I welcome the general thrust of the Prime Minister's statement, but we wish to know whether it will be an open system or an opaque one. Those of us who have been asked to support nominations have been amazed at those who happen to come up and those who are missed. The right hon. Gentleman talked about judges. If a Northern Ireland judge dissociates himself from patronage, will the right hon. Gentleman refuse him a knighthood? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with a view to restoring the Order of St. Patrick?

The Prime Minister: I have not consulted my right hon. and learned Friend on that matter. I have sought to make the system more open and nominations easier. I suspect that there are many who merit an award who are never nominated because of the present haphazard system. I


hope that the changes that I have announced today will improve the system and make it more likely that those who merit an award will be honoured in future.

Mr. Anthony Steen: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his splendid and long-overdue statement. I think that the House will agree that far too much evil and badness is portrayed in the newspapers and the media. The fact that my right hon. Friend is to pick out good works and voluntary work in the community as being worthy of honour should be supported by the House. But will my right hon. Friend look at the process, not just the awards? I think that the House would like a more open system so that we know how it works.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of giving greater emphasis to the voluntary and the charitable sectors and, as I said in my statement, that is what I propose to do. As I said a moment ago, I am seeking to make the system more open and I believe that the changes that I have announced today will help do so.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Is not the best way to preserve the independence of the judiciary to give none of them knighthoods rather than all of them knighthoods? Does not the same apply to journalists? While we are on the subject, can the Prime Minister throw any light on the award of a damehood to a Miss Sue Tinson, an associate editor of Independent Television News and a former editor of "News at Ten", in the resignation honours of his predecessor?

The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman has to say is certainly an option. It is one which, no doubt, I and, in many years to come, my successors will consider.

Mr. Barry Field: One of my most prized possessions is the Territorial Decoration for service in Her Majesty's Reserve forces. My father holds the Territorial Medal because, despite distinguished service during the war, and commissioned at that, he missed the TD by one day because of the cessation of hostilities. There is great camaraderie in the Reserve forces and it would be widely welcomed if my right hon. Friend could tell the House today that there will be a universal award for the Reserve forces in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to consider in his review. He has heard what my hon. Friend has had to say and I am sure that he will consider it.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Does the Prime Minister agree that the least legitimate and least supported feature of the honours system is the occasional award of hereditary peerages? Will that practice cease forthwith?

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to award hereditary peerages.

Mr. John Gorst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a general belief that people in their 70s and 80s are almost no longer eligible for recognition? Is he further aware that many of them are not recognised either because they have been overlooked or because they have done further work? Will he give an assurance that age is no bar to the recognition of merit?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend touches upon an important point and I can give him that assurance.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that I have been a member of the National Union of Mineworkers for 40-odd years, and that is all I need? I am proud of the fact that that union has served me well. I do not need any of these honours and badges that are talked about. I remind the Prime Minister that no honours system can work in practice. At this very moment there will be people out there doing sterling deeds who will go unnoticed, whose deeds will not get into the public domain and whose names will never reach the ears of politicians, Prime Ministers or Queens of the realm. That is why the wheat can never be sorted from the chaff.
The Prime Minister has admitted today, has he not, that Tory Members of Parliament will become knights, that people will enter the House of Lords, that those newspaper owners who help him out at the general election will finish up in the House of Lords or with knighthoods and that those companies that provide the Tory party with vast sums of money will also get their honours? The whole thing is a sham and it is time that it was ended.

The Prime Minister: I made the point some time ago about people who go unnoticed. We shall open up the nomination system so that, if he wishes, the hon. Gentleman will be able to nominate people in his constituency or elsewhere who may have served the community but who may otherwise not have been noticed. That is one of the purposes of the changes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not let his constituents down in that respect. He is right to be proud of his long membership of the National Union of Mineworkers, but there is no compulsion to accept honours. Many people deserve them. It gives great pleasure to them and their families to see society honour them for the work that they have done. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot be open-minded enough to see that other people may welcome and benefit from the system. He should open his closed mind.

Mr. Bill Walker: Those who are involved in voluntary service will be delighted by my right hon. Friend's statement today. The allocation of awards to the voluntary military services was based on past numbers available. Any adjustments that are made, therefore, should ensure that more people from the voluntary sector —I can send him names of individuals who have given more than 40 years' service in the voluntary military service—are rewarded properly with an honour than under the present system.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should be reassured that that is my intention.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Prime Minister confirm that since 1979 more than 100 Tory Members have been given knighthoods? One of the explanations for the way in which his predecessor was tipped over was that so many Tory Members had knighthoods that they felt they had nothing to lose. Will he further confirm that the chairmen and managing directors of the top 200 companies are twice as likely to receive honours if they donate money to the Tory party? Does he acknowledge that if the honours system had any justification, which many Labour Members doubt, it would be as a system to reward those who are not


rewarded by the normal means in this country? The current system gives to those who have it already, and it is time that we reversed the balance.

The Prime Minister: I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I thought that I detected in his early remarks the smell of sour grapes. On awards to business men, I refer again to the independent scrutiny of the Honours Scrutiny Committee and of the independent committees that recommend honours.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. Friend's statement is very welcome, especially for its greater recognition of voluntary service. Will he closely consider the regional distribution of honours, particularly in medicine, because many achievements in the north have been insufficiently recognised?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to examine that. We need to bear in mind as we do so that we must not introduce a quota system. We must ensure that honours are distributed on merit.

Dr. Tony Wright: A Conservative Member took me to one side the other day to explain the process by which he had become a knight. As the story developed, it transpired that it was a consolation prize for not getting what he really wanted —[HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] It is tempting, but I shall resist the temptation. Does the Prime Minister understand that the system of political honour corrupts and degrades the honours system, and that it is no good saying that he will continue to give honours to people who deserve them, because the currency of honour has been devalued by that system of political honour? It is a dishonourable system.

The Prime Minister: That is copper-plated nonsense. As for the discussion to which the hon. Gentleman referred, clearly he must have asked how to receive an honour.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. Friend's announcement on the abolition of the distinction between the MBE and the BEM is entirely welcome. Will he amplify a little on what he has in mind for gallantry awards? Would it not be true to say that the Military Cross awarded for gallantry and the Military Medal for gallantry may not be the same decoration but that they are an equivalent decoration? That is understood by the armed forces whose members receive them. Is my right hon. Friend entirely satisfied that the case has been made for abolishing the distinction between them?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the early part of his remarks. I examined the substantive part of his question very carefully with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and it is our view and that of the armed forces chiefs that it right to abolish the distinction.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does not the Prime Minister understand that the retention of the honours system maintains the division of a class-ridden society which he is supposed to be dedicated to ending? Is not the reality behind the retention of political honours—the most corrupt section—that he cannot afford to get rid of them because of the Tory party's cash crisis? Is it not outrageous that the one section of honours which is to operate

automatically is that of the judiciary, whose members are among the best paid of all public servants? Is it not enough that people should do a good job at work or in the community? Should not that be sufficient reward, without people crawling around the Prime Minister for some recognition?

The Prime Minister: For many people the answer is yes, it is sufficient reward. That is why the voluntary system in honours is so important—no one is required to accept an honour. Honours give great pleasure and satisfaction, and I believe that it is right for society generally to show its respect for people who have made a particular contribution. That is why we have the voluntary system; it is why the honours system has survived for so long and is so widely supported.
I understand what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's rejection of the honours system, but I suggest that he is wrong. There are millions of people in this country who perform voluntary or other services and who are delighted to see those among their number who have performed particular service receive recognition of that fact.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the amalgamation of the BEM and the MBE, there will still be more people worthy of an MBE than there are awards currently available? Does he accept that with the new emphasis on voluntary service it might perhaps be better to establish a new mark of recognition with that particular flavour?

The Prime Minister: I considered whether one should produce a new mark of recognition, especially for voluntary service, but I decided on balance that it was better not to introduce a new honour into the system, but, at an appropriate level, to use the honours system that already exists. I agree with my hon. Friend that many people in the voluntary sector, and beyond, merit an honour. What I hope will come about as a result of today's statement is that more of the best of those people will be nominated for and then receive such an honour.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As the son of a man awarded the Military Medal for what I think was called bravery in the field, I welcome the sweeping away of the invidious distinction that has existed for far too long between officers and the men and women in the military ranks. To judge by the content of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may we assume that in respect of civil honours we shall never again see the award of a knighthood to an editor who, in his newspaper, slavishly follows this disreputable Government?

The Prime Minister: I am tempted to say, "Name them." On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am grateful for his remarks about the removal of the distinction in gallantry awards. I think that it will be very widely welcomed in the armed forces and far beyond them.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that today's announcement will go down very well in rural areas such as Norfolk where often the chairman of the parish council will receive an MBE but the clerk, who is equally hard-working, will receive a BEM? That is clearly archaic and a cause of confusion. Can the Prime Minister confirm that all those people who were awarded a BEM in the past will almost certainly get an MBE in the future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is the intention that people who in the past would have been recommended for a British Empire Medal will in future be recommended for an MBE.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister not agree that in the specific case of the House, the privilege of membership is in itself a great and sufficient reward? Can the Prime Minister explain why, if the system has not been corrupted, every hack, obedient, lickspittle Tory Member has received his knighthood—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Flynn, that is an unparliamentary word, which I cannot accept. [Interruption.] Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that word.

Mr. Flynn: I withdraw the word "lickspittle", Madam Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister to explain why all the obedient, mediocre, talentless Tory Members of Parliament who have gone obediently through the Lobbies for years have had their knighthoods, whereas other Tory Members who have served their time have not had the offer. Those who have not had knighthoods are people of talent, but they also happen to be people of independent mind.

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether my honourable and independent minded Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) would agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Roger Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that long service deserves special recognition in the case of the Labour party? Will he recommend the creation of a new order, perhaps called the Pink Elephant, with several classes and an hereditary aspect, for persons recommended by the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend gives me a further matter to consider after the review in the summer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. On that note, we shall move on. I have a short statement to make to the House.

Librarian (Retirement)

Madame Speaker: I have received a letter from the Librarian, indicating his wish to retire later this year. I shall arrange for the text of his letter to be embodied in the Official Report. Mr. Dermot Englefield has worked in the Library for nearly 40 years. Before his appointment as Librarian in 1991, he held the post of Deputy Librarian for 15 years.
That whole period has been a period of major expansion and great technical change in the range of services provided by the Library and the demands made on the staff who work there. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in thanking Mr. Englefield for his long and distinguished service to the House, and at the same time express our appreciation of the assistance provided to us by the Library as a whole.
Mr. Englefield will retire on 30 September this year, and I have appointed Miss Jennifer Tanfield, the Deputy Librarian, to succeed him. I call the Leader of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that statement, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I feel that the Leader of the House should speak first.

Mr. Skinner: I wanted to know whether you were going to make an announcement about the cleaners, too, Madam Speaker, in our classless society.

Madam Speaker: Order. Leader of the House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have no doubt, Madam Speaker, that you are right in your expectation that the whole House will want to join in the tribute that you have paid to Mr. Englefield and in your thanks to the staff of the Library under his leadership. As you have said, his long period as Deputy Librarian and then Librarian has spanned nearly 17 years of extensive developments in the Library, during which the range and quality of its services have come to be valued ever more highly year by year by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Englefield's own contribution has gained him the respect not only of his own staff and of colleagues throughout the Departments of the House but undoubtedly of hon. Members and their staff, who have been helped so much by his efforts. We are all grateful to him and wish him well for a long and happy retirement.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I associate myself with your remarks, Madam Speaker, and with those of the Leader of the House. Mr. Englefield has an immensely impressive record of service to the House and —perhaps more important to us and to him—through us, to our constituents. After all, it is on behalf of our constituents that his services and those of the Library are supplied. He has performed a crucial role in the expansion and development of the Library service. The more the Library staff are able to support and help us, the more we are able to assist our constituents. On behalf of my party, I extend thanks to Mr. Englefield and best wishes for his retirement.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On behalf of the members of my party and all the staff of the House who work for us, I express thanks not just to the Librarian on his forthcoming retirement but, through him, to the entire team that he so ably heads. We may complain about the food in this place, and we may complain from time to time about the accommodation, but the one place where we get phenomenally good service at all hours of the day and night, often at very short notice, is the Library of the House. In terms of value for money in the public service, we could find nothing better. We also welcome the appointment that you, Madam Speaker, have made. Perhaps it is a precursor, an indication, that, at last, women will have a chance of securing many more of the top jobs.

Mr. Gary Waller: As Chairman of the Information Select Committee, I should like to associate myself and the Committee with the warm tributes that have been paid to Dermot Englefield for his long service to the House—latterly as Deputy Librarian and, subsequently, Librarian. In my experience, if there is any issue on which all hon. Members agree it is that the expertise, patience and helpfulness of the Library staff are unparalleled. Dermot Englefield merits our appreciation for the quiet but effective way in which he has ensured that the Library copes so well with the ever-increasing demands that we make in seeking access to information, often at very short notice. In offering Mr. Englefield every good wish r his retirement, we also congratulate and look forward to working with his successor, Miss Jennifer Tanfield, who in September will become only the 12th Librarian of the House of Commons since 1818.

Mr. Peter Shore: I, too, pay tribute to Mr. Englefield, his successor and the entire Library staff. Members of Parliament, in their constituency and other work, are enormously assisted by the Library staff. But the Library contributes something more: to some extent it evens out the enormous imbalance between Treasury-Bench Members, with their command of information, advice and all the intellectual resources of the civil service, and other hon. Members. This is thanks in no small measure to the Library staff, to whom I am most grateful.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I shall not pass any judgment on the food. Nor can I pass any judgment on the strong drink, as I do not partake of it. I associate myself with your remarks, Madam Speaker, and with those of my House of Commons colleagues. Ruskin said that when one moves among books one can move among kings. In our Library we certainly move among kings. A kingly service is provided by the Librarian, and I wish him the best for his retirement.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of my party, I pay tribute to Mr. Englefield and express good wishes for his retirement. He has not only provided Members with a service but worked in the wider field of the emerging democracies whose representatives have come here to discover something of the way in which the House of Commons operates. Knowing your own perception, Madam Speaker, I welcome your appointment of Mr. Englefield's successor. I know that the appointment was made on merit, and not simply on the basis of sex.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of the three constitutional nationalist parties, I extend thanks to the retiring Librarian for all his work over the years and extend very good wishes to his successor, knowing full well that the objectivity, speed, efficiency and courtesy with which all our inquiries are dealt will continue. We are all very grateful.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: May I add to the tributes already paid to Mr. Englefield on his retirement? Having served with Mr. Englefield for nine of the 15 years during which he was Deputy Librarian and I was Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee, I came to admire enormously the loyalty and service that he dedicated to his predecessor, Dr. Menhennet, during the 15 years in which he was Librarian. It was a remarkable team.
In due course, the part that Dermot Englefield played in the development of the Derby Gate Research Library will come to be known. That Library is now the jewel in the crown of the Libraries in the Commonwealth Parliaments —if not in the world Parliaments. I express my thanks for what Mr. Englefield has achieved and I welcome his successor, Miss Tanfield, for whom I have formed the highest regard while Chairman of the Sub-Committee.

Mr. Skinner: Would you agree, Madam Speaker, that there is a certain irony about the situation? There are 2,000 workers in this building, the real workers being outside the Chamber. Many are paid small amounts. Some have worked for 20, 30 or 40 years in the Cafeteria, mopping up the floors when we come in at 6 or 7 am. Yet on the day that the Prime Minister has been talking about levelling out honours, a special tribute is paid to somebody in the Library, no doubt deservedly, whereas there are no commendations for all the people who have to keep the wheels going in here.
I should have thought that, on this day, the tribute should be coupled with tributes to the many others who have retired from this place after many years of service. In view of all the tributes paid to the Library, I make two points with which, I am sure, the retiring Librarian would agree. First, the Government must not privatise the Library and, secondly, they must not put VAT on reading matter.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: It was not long ago that a waitress in the Strangers Cafeteria was given not only a farewell party in the Speaker's apartments, but an honour. The staff of this place have not been forgotten.
I add my regards to Mr. Englefield for the wonderful Library service which he has built up over many years and which all Back-Bench Members use. The specialist staff in the Library spare no time or effort in ensuring they keep up to date with their various specialisms. We see them sitting during Question Times that involve them, listening, keeping ahead of us and keeping up to date. They are always there to give us information. I place on record on behalf of all Back-Bench Members my thanks to a man who can retire safe in the knowledge that he has built up a Library service second to none, with a Library staff second to none and with a successor who, I am sure, will be second to none.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is it not the case that if Members of the House of Commons were half as


efficient, half as competent and half as knowledgeable as the members of the Library staff, we should have better Governments and better Oppositions?

Following is the text of the letter:
Dear Madam Speaker
As agreed with your predecessor on my appointment as Librarian, I am, on retirement, placing my office at your disposal with effect from 1 July 1993. This will be nearly forty years after I joined the Library when some two dozen staff served 630 Members with neither a telephone in the Members' Library nor a photocopier in sight!
The changes, including technological changes, of the last four decades have greatly altered the job of being a Member of Parliament and hence the service they expect from their Library staff. It has been a stimulating lifework to be associated with these substantial developments—for the last 17 years as Deputy Librarian and Librarian.
The House of Commons remains essentially a small organisation for which to work and it is the friendships over the years, both with Members and with colleagues in the Library Department but also in other Departments of both Houses, which I have especially appreciated and which have given me such pleasure.
Yours sincerely
DERMOT ENGLEFIELD Librarian

Business of the House

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:
MONDAY 8 MARCH—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 15th day.
TUESDAY 9 MARCH—Opposition day, 10th allotted day: there will be a debate described as "The collapse of manufacturing industry and the rise of unemployment", on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order.
WEDNESDAY I0 MARCH—Until Seven o'clock, motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
Remaining stages of the Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
Motion to take note of the annual report of the European Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1991, together with the institutions' replies. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order.
THURSDAY II MARCH—European Communities (Amendment) Bill: progress in Committee, 16th day.
FRIDAY I2 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY I5 MARCH—Second Reading of the Disability (Grants) Bill.
[Wednesday 10 March:
Relevant European Community documents—OJ C330 Vol. 35, Court of Auditors reports for 1991; Unnumbered, Budget for 1991: Council's discharge.
Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee —HC 79-ix 1992–93); HC 79-xxi (1992–93).]

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. I hope that he will find time for an early debate on the recently announced rise in prescription charges. It is, as I understand it, the biggest rise ever, at 13 per cent.—eight times the rate of inflation. It was outrageous that it was announced without a statement to the House. It would be even more outrageous if it passed without our having a chance to discuss it. So, as I say, I hope that he will find time for an early debate.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the defence estimates debate is still outstanding.
I hope—as I know do many hon. Members on both sides of the House—that he will look for an early statement on the issue of the coal industry. There are worrying rumours that a statement and the White Paper may not be available until after the Budget. That takes us very near the Easter recess, and I am sure that the Lord President will bear in mind that the present contracts run out on 1 April. That is a matter of great concern on all sides of the House, and I hope that he will look at it.
Can he also say when he expects primary legislation to be before the House with regard to the increase in the number of European constituencies? The Prime Minister announced this increase in December. We are well aware of the need for the Boundary Commission to ensure as wide consultation as possible on the review of the


boundaries, so clearly it is important for us to have early notice of how and when this legislation will be brought forward.
Finally, given that the right hon. Gentleman has announced an Opposition day for Tuesday, I very much hope, and indeed believe that the House will expect, that the Government will try to avoid scheduling statements on that day.

Mr. Newton: First, so far as prescription charges are concerned, I would simply make the point that it has been regular practice to make the annual announcement concerning prescription charges by way of a written answer, so I do not entirely accept the comments that the right hon. Lady made in that respect. She will, of course, have an appropriate opportunity to debate any necessary order in due course.
On the question of defence estimates, I cannot, I am afraid, add to what I told the right hon. Lady last week, when I said that I thought that the question of a debate was best left to discussion through the usual channels.
On coal, I note the right hon. Lady's request, but I am not in a position to add to what I have said on other occasions. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will want to make a statement as soon as he can do so, but I cannot at present predict precisely when that will be; nor, indeed, can I predict at this stage precisely when it will be appropriate to bring forward the legislation to which the right hon. Lady referred in respect of Euro-constituencies.
Lastly, I note the right hon. Lady's point about statements, but statements are sometimes appropriately made, and the House is often very anxious to hear them, at times which are not ideal for either the Government or the Opposition. We have to look at the whole range of considerations in determining when they should be made.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is now a year since the Jopling report was published? Can we expect a statement from the Government either this week or, certainly, before the Budget on the exact action that they will take on this? The Jopling Committee only sat for the last Parliament and it will rest with the Procedure Committee to take action if we do not find that the Government are willing to proceed as soon as possible.

Mr. Newton: I am obviously very conscious of the close interest that my right hon. Friend has taken in these matters over a long period, and indeed of the importance of the role that he plays as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I also very well understand the anxiety of hon. Members, on both sides of the House, I think, to see further progress made. As my right hon. Friend knows, and as the right hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) knows, discussions are proceeding through the usual channels and in various ways not a million miles removed from some with which my right hon. Friend is very familiar. It remains very much my hope to make progress at an early stage, but I cannot give my right hon. Friend the exact commitment that he seeks from me this afternoon.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to

make a statement next week on the future of an Army personnel centre at Glasgow designated for 1995? Is he aware that rumours are circulating in Scotland that the centre is now to be placed in Stockport? Those rumours have been published in one of the national newspapers in Scotland. Given the prominence of written questions on this subject, does he accept that it would be preferable to have an early statement next week, because it is in no one's interest that there should be continued speculation on the matter when 1,000 jobs are at stake?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend is giving the House further information about the matter this afternoon, to the effect that a number of representations have been received during the consultation period set out in his earlier statement. One of the representations has proposed an alternative building for the centre in Stockport at a purchase price to the Ministry of Defence of rather less than £4 million against a purchase price of about £20 million for the original proposal. My right hon. and learned Friend will be telling the House this afternoon that the representations are being considered but no decisions have been taken, and he will make a further statement on the Government's intentions as soon as possible.

Mr. John Ward: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to have a debate on the failure of the French Government to provide protection for British lorry drivers on cross-channel ferries, especially in view of the fact that, in the past 24 hours, a lorry carrying fish which was travelling from Poole to Cherbourg was badly damaged? The lorry driver could well go out of business as a result, and the contribution of the French police was to act as spectators, taking no action whatever.

Mr. Newton: Obviously, I am disturbed—as I think all hon. Members would be—by the account which my hon. Friend has just related. He will understand that I cannot promise a debate, but perhaps I can point to the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport is answering questions on Monday and the Foreign Secretary on Wednesday, so there may be opportunities for him to raise those matters at other times.

Mr. David Winnick: Would it be possible for the Secretary of State for Social Security to come to the House on Monday and explain why, during this very cold spell, not a single penny of cold weather payments has been paid during the week? It is a shabby state of affairs. I checked with the Library beforehand, and that is the position. Why are so many people who are retired or living on low incomes being penalised and punished day in and day out, especially after the Prime Minister's statement—

Madam Speaker: Order. I regret having to call the attention of the House once again at business questions to the fact that we are asking the Lord President about next week's business, not indulging in arguments across the Floor of the House. Next week's business statement deals with next week's business. Hon. Members are asking the Lord President to change the business or alter it in some way so that they may have their specific topics debated next week.

Mr. Winnick: I ask for a statement.

Mr. Newton: As it happens, I do not need to change the business for next week in order to provide the hon. Gentleman with the opportunity to make the point, which he clearly wants, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is answering questions on Monday week.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1452.
[That this House joins with all other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth in the observance of Commonwealth Day on Monday 8th March; recognises the Commonwealth theme for 1993 which concerns fundamental human values, protecting the rights of the individual and the promotion of good governance; and also notes that the United Kingdom Branch of the CPA continues to serve the interests of honourable Members by holding parliamentary conferences and seminars in London and by arranging parliamentary visits to and from Commonwealth countries.]
It relates to the commemoration of Commonwealth Day on Monday 8 March. I ask my right hon. Friend to make arrangements to have a debate specifically on the Commonwealth so that the remarkable contribution which it makes to the world in the development and sustenance of democracy in so many different countries can be discussed and properly appreciated therefrom.

Mr. Newton: I may have some difficulty in finding time for such a debate, especially with the Budget coming immediately after the period to which I have referred in my statement. Certainly I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend's sentiments; indeed, the Government fully support the statements in the motion.

Mr. David Trimble: Would it be possible for us to have an early debate on the Government's inconsistent attitude to small businesses, so that we could raise the problem of a firm in my constituency which created 15 jobs with Government assistance but has been forced out of business apparently because Customs and Excise was not prepared to wait a month for a small amount of VAT?

Mr. Newton: I am obviously unable to make a detailed comment on any particular case, but I dispute the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is some inconsistency in the Government's approach. The Government are consistently anxious to encourage small businesses, but obviously that has to be done within a framework of law about taxes and obligations.

Mr. Paul Channon: May I urge my right hon. Friend to go a little further than he did in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)? There has now been a long delay in implementing the Jopling report or, indeed, parts of it. Does my right hon. Friend intend at least to make a statement before Easter so that the matter can be debated afterwards and the House can decide what changes it wants to make?

Mr. Newton: Again, I well understand why my right hon. Friend presses me on the matter. I have said that discussions are proceeding in the ways in which they do in the House and my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee is aware of that. I hope that the

right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is also noting the comments that are being made on this side of the House.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Can the Leader of the House arrange for an emergency debate on the way in which the internal market in the NHS is allowing patients to die? If not, will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Health comes to the Dispatch Box next week to comment on what Dr. Duncan Dymond, the cardiac consultant at St. Bartholomew's hospital, has told The Guardian readers today about how patients are dying as a result of the Government's policies?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement in the terms that he requested. Nor, indeed, do I accept the charges that he made. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will find a way of making her own comments about what has been reported.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House undertake to provide a day's debate in the near future for us to discuss the government of the United Kingdom and demonstrate that the last thing that England needs is a new tier of regional government and that to set up a parliament in Scotland and an assembly in Wales would strike deeply at the integrity of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise that debate, but my hon. Friend's sentiments will be widely shared perhaps not only on this side of the House.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on the case of the British nuclear test veterans? Is he aware that three times between May and June last year the Prime Minister assured me that the National Radiological Protection Board study would be published before the end of 1992? Now we believe that it may not be published by the end of 1993—too late for many nuclear test veterans.

Mr. Newton: Both the Secretary of State for Defence and, as I have already said, the Secretary of State for Social Security will be answering questions during the business that my statement covered. In any event, I will draw their attention to the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has made. From my previous incarnation I am well aware how difficult and complex some of these matters are.

Mr. David Madel: The rate of unemployment in travel-to-work areas determines whether an area is given assisted area status, but the way in which the travel-to-work areas are drawn at present masks some serious unemployment in certain towns in the south of England, including in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether next week or before Easter the travel-to-work areas will be redefined?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking on that point, but he will know that the assisted area map is currently under review. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friends who are involved in that to his request.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How much longer do I have to keep on asking the same question?

Mr. Newton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how much longer he may be able to go on asking the same question. In addition to what I told him last week, I can tell him that I have had a further useful conversation with my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I am now considering how and when we might make the sort of progress that the hon. Gentleman would wish to see.

Mr. David Porter: In the light of the high winds, full moon and surge tides forecast for the east coast next week, will my hon. Friend arrange for a statement, if not a full debate, on sea defence, river defence and evacuation procedures? If he cannot find the time, may I suggest that he take Thursday because to my constituents sea and river defence is a far more important issue than the business that he has already announced?

Mr. Newton: As someone who, as a boy, was living in Harwich on the east coast at the time of the 1952 and 1953 floods, I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern. I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friends concerned, the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is it not a disgrace that the President of the Board of Trade has not brought the coal report to this House? Cannot the Leader of the House go and drag him to the Dispatch Box next week so that we can have a statement on the situation in the coal industry?

Mr. Newton: I do not think the actions specifically requested of me would be entirely appropriate. It is right that my right hon. Friend should consider these matters with the great thoroughness that they require and make a statement when he is in a position to do so, which is what he will do.

Sir Dudley Smith: In view of the acres of time devoted to the Maastricht Bill—I do not necessarily criticise that—could my right hon. Friend find a little time to debate the increasingly delicate and serious situation in the former Yugoslavia? We need an update, not only on Government policy, but on exactly where we stand.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand if I note his request on this important subject but perhaps make the point that I went to some trouble only the week before last to provide, in effect, a full day to debate those very matters.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tuesday, when the Home Secretary made a statement about juvenile crime, you, Madam Speaker, because of the severe constraints on you and on the time of the House, were able to allow only 40 minutes for the statement and the Front Benches took more than half of that 40 minutes? As juvenile crime and the solutions to it are matters of major importance to every Member, will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate so that those of us who have secure units in our constituencies can advise other hon. Members about the problems, difficulties and successes of secure units?

Mr. Newton: In this respect I appear to have managed to achieve unusual foresight in predicting demands because I had already arranged a debate on crime and crime prevention for tomorrow.

Sir James Kilfedder: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has seen my early-day motion 1511?
[That this House utterly condemns the North Down and Ards Unit of Management, which is shortly to acquire trust status for its despicable decision to replace vitally important cardiac ambulances at the Ulster Hospital, Dundonald with hired taxis for an allegedly trial period of six months from Monday 8 March; calls on the Eastern Health Board to reverse this squalid decision; and calls on the Government to intervene to safeguard the continued use of cardiac ambulances at the Ulster Hospital and its paramedic crew who have made the difference between life and death in a number of cases.]
It refers to the despicable decision by the North Down and Ards unit of management, confirmed by the Eastern health and social services board, to replace the crucially vital cardiac ambulances with hired taxis for the Ulster hospital, Dundonald, in my constituency. Could the Leader of the House provide time for an emergency debate next week so that the authorities can be forced to reverse this squalid decision and to establish an inquiry into the whole financing of the Eastern health and social services board, which apparently provides ambulances free for the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast?

Mr. Newton: I understand that my noble Friend the Minister responsible for health and social services in Northern Ireland is not only aware of the concern that has been expressed but has requested an urgent report from the Eastern health and social services board. I think that perhaps the first thing would be to see what that report says.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Last Friday the House approved the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) calling for specific provision to combat hurtful and unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people. May we have a statement next week about the Government's intentions as to implementing that resolution of the House?

Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly have been present and have participated in that debate and he will know that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made a considered statement of the Government's approach to these matters and indicated the way in which the Government would seek to carry them forward. I do not think that against that background it would be appropriate for me to make a commitment about a statement on the time scale that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Roger Knapman: While it is agreeable to have all these debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill on Mondays and Thursdays, can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any particular reason why we cannot have such debates on a Tuesday or a Wednesday?

Mr. Newton: It sometimes strikes me as curious how these questions come from those having a particular view on the Bill—not that I complain about that. I shall simply


say, cautiously, that there is a range of factors which determines the pattern of business which the Government suggests to the House.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Is the Leader of the House aware that 2,000 miners and their families in my constituency will be disappointed that we still have not come to a conclusion about their future, and their future work, which was to end at the end of this month. It is now patently clear that the Government cannot sort out the future of the coal industry. We have had a Select Committee report. Can the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate next week on that report? If the Government cannot do it, let this House decide the future of the British coal industry.

Mr. Newton: I have touched on that subject twice already in the course of responding to questions and I have indicated the hope of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he will be in a position to make a statement at the earliest possible moment, but I cannot add to what I have said.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Can I follow the point made by my right hon. Friends about the Jopling report? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that there is a recommendation that there should not be controversial business after 7 o'clock on a Thursday evening. He will also know that on 13 July he gave a certain amount of support to that principle. I understand that next week there is controversial business about terrorism until 7 o'clock on Wednesday, but that thereafter it is not particularly controversial. I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House and to my right hon. Friend if Wednesday's business were exchanged with Thursday's business. That would be very much in accordance with what the Jopling report suggested and my right hon. Friend supported.

Mr. Newton: We would all like to make progress, as I have said several times, on the recommendations of the Jopling report, but recommendations such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred were associated with proposals on the other side of the balance for much greater programming of the progress of Government Bills. I accept that those proposals would not have applied to Government Bills on the Floor of the House, but if my hon. Friend could see his way to agreeing to some programming of Government Bills on the Floor of the House, everything might be a little bit easier.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider having a debate as soon as possible on the procedures and practices in this House? I refer him paticularly to the way in which Ministers these days seem disdainful of hon. Members on the Back Benches. We are used to having oral questions dodged, but we are now seeing written questions being dodged and, more importantly, Ministers being unavailable for or unwilling to meet hon. Members on crucial issues.
I give just one example. The privatisation of Greater Manchester Buses is putting a great deal of difficulty on the work people in that enterprise who do not know from day to day what the future of their pensions is likely to be. Hon. Members from the Greater Manchester area have been refused a meeting with the Secretary of State over

that question and I have had questions, as I said earlier, blatantly dodged on that issue. That should not happen and we need a debate to iron out these problems.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has given me one example, but only one, and I do not complain about that, of the kind of concern that he has in mind. I would be prepared to look at any examples that he gives me and I will specifically take up with my right hon. Friend the point that he has mentioned.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on compensation orders? As he knows, the courts have power to award compensation to members of the public who have suffered a burglary, a theft or some other crime against their property, but more often than not the person against whom the order is made gets an instalment order for £1 or £2 a week which is very unsatisfactory. The House should debate whether we should adopt the same system as we have for the Child Support Agency, whereby the state gives the money to the person entitled and then chases, in the case of the Child Support Agency, the absent father, and in the case of victims of crime, the criminal against whom the order has been made.

Mr. Newton: Two things occur to me. First, I doubt that it would be stretching the rules of order to make such a point in the debate on crime and crime prevention tomorrow. Secondly, if that fails, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be here this day week to answer questions.

Ms. Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House take time to look at early-day motion 1436, which involves the victims of human growth hormone injections?
[That this House notes that 1,980 British children were treated with cadaver-derived human growth hormone between 1959 and 1985 as part of a medical research programme and drug trial conducted by the UKMRC; notes that the treatments were withdrawn after reports from the United States of America of the deaths from Creutzfeld-Jacob disease of United States recipients; notes further that six confirmed deaths amongst United Kingdom recipients have since occurred; notes with great concern that the cadaveric material consisting of approximately 900,000 pituitary glands was collected and paid for by UKMRC with no practical regard for meeting legal requirements on human tissue removal or the screening out of infected glands; notes that administration of human growth hormone continued without the product ever appearing to fall within the regulatory frameworks of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956 or the Medicines Act 1968 and thus it escaped any regulation with respect to its strength, quality, purity, safety or efficacy; notes with great concern the plight of the remaining United Kingdom recipients and their families who are faced with the prospect of possibly incubating this disease in its pre-clinical state for up to 35 years, that there are no tests that will detect its presence prior to the onset of clinical symptoms, and that once symptoms occur death is inevitable, particularly horrific and usually follows within 12 months; and demands that the Government intervenes to establish a compensation scheme along the lines of the MacFarlane Trust ( Special Payments (2)) for the victims of this scandal and the families of those who have died.]
Will he consider finding time next week for a statement or a short debate on the plight of the 1,908 recipients of


those injections who are now at risk of contracting the human equivalent of mad cow disease? Eight people have already died, and there is no way of knowing how many more are at serious risk. Will he consider offering some support to the families of those victims who face a terrible, anguished plight?

Mr. Newton: I well understand why the hon. Lady has felt it right to raise those tragic cases. She will know that the unhappy background is that the treatment concerned was in international use for 25 years and conformed with the best known scientific and clinical practice of the time. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friends have not found it possible to accept that there are grounds for compensation over and above the services available under the national health service and social security Acts.

Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are a number of early-day motions on the Order Paper criticising the affairs of Monklands district council. Is he further aware that the Labour party in Scotland has today published a report saying that the selection and recruitment procedures of that council are open to criticism? Can we have a debate in which the two Monklands Members might voice their criticisms of the council?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion which I might ask the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to note and perhaps to pass on to her right hon. and hon. Friends. Were the Leader of the Opposition to join in the request for such a debate —it would be understandable if he did so—obviously I would have to give it close attention.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for an urgent debate on early-day motion 1462 and a further early-day motion that I tabled today on the return of 19th-century working conditions to private licensed mines in my constituency?
[That this House calls upon the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Wales to condemn the disgraceful behaviour of certain private coalmine owners in South Wales who are openly flouting employment law, contractual agreements with employees and cutting corners on health and safety provisions; and condemns moreover, the backdoor attempts by British Coal to privatise production at Tower Colliery in the Cynon Valley by contracting-out to commercial companies the surface operations at that colliery, a move which will result in job-losses and a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money in the form of recent investment in surface machinery and equipment, the benefit of which will be enjoyed not by the taxpayers but by the private companies contracted by British Coal, many of which have recently been created by former British Coal staff and managers eager to cash-in on the prospect of the privatisation of the industry.]
For example, Crugua colliery in the vale of Neath, owned by Rhys Jeffries, and Parc Level colliery in Rhiwfawr, owned by Rosemary Griffith, have been operating such practices as the denial of payslips in breach of employment contract law to the men working there, refusing to give sick pay or holiday pay and a number of other breaches of contract and employment law. In one case, again in defiance of their contracts, workers were

denied the right to opt out of working over Christmas, and were sacked because they refused to do so. Is this an ominous dress rehearsal for the privatisation of British coal which the Government are planning, and could we have an urgent statement?

Mr. Newton: It does not sound to me as if the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that what he describes is an ominous rehearsal for anything, and if he does, I can disabuse him. He is alleging various breaches of the law or of health and safety requirements. The proper thing for him to do is to bring those allegations, if he wishes to continue to make them, to the attention of the authorities responsible for enforcing the law.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Once again, my right hon. Friend has announced that no less than one third of the allocation of parliamentary time for six working days ahead is to go to the ratification process of the proposed treaty on European union. Could he please bear it in mind, particularly as the Budget debate will take up the week after next, that the debate on the defence estimates is long overdue, as the White Paper was published way back in June 1992? Many people in the armed forces and the defence industries will begin to think, as I and many people outside do, that the Government care more for European union than they do for the defence of the realm.

Mr. Newton: They would be quite wrong, as would my hon. Friend, were they to attempt to draw any such conclusion. Britain's position in Europe is of great importance, as are our defence forces. In the past two or three weeks, we have had at least two full-day debates on matters relating to defence.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1423 on London's health service, which has now been signed by 101 hon. Members?
[That this House is appalled by the Statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the future of London's Health Service and believes her methods are a cynical manipulation of procedure to allow valued and much loved institutions to wither on the vine; further believes that her strategy for the closure of hospitals and the loss of a large number of beds is a product of the internal market and will exacerbate the crisis for the 150,000 people already on the waiting lists and will lead to huge job losses amongst hospital workers; also believes that the Tomlinson Report is seriously flawed in its statistical base and fails to take account of the mobile population of commuters and tourists ; further fails to examine the causes of ill health linked to poor housing and unemployment and that its claims that London is over provided is erroneous; is concerned that the proposals for funding of improved primary care are inadequate to meet the needs that already exist and that the hospital closure programme will seriously damage the accident and emergency services and lose first rate research and teaching facilities; and accordingly calls for the establishment of a London Health Authority which should examine the health needs of Londoners, ensure the best use of existing resources and halt the hospital closure programme.]
Will he now make arrangements for a full debate on the state of London's health service? Can he comment on the fact that the Secretary of State for Health is employing people in her Department to implement the Tomlinson


report and to take part in the closure of hospitals and crucial facilities and the loss of a large number of hospital beds and jobs, with no authority whatsoever, from the House or anywhere else? Does he not think it is time that we had a full debate on the fate of London's health service?

Mr. Newton: In view of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has spoken, I shall say simply that my right hon. Friend made a full statement, and exposed herself to considerable questioning, in the House earlier this month. I might pay even greater heed to his request, which I note, had he made at least some reference to the fact that the Government are proposing to invest £170 million to build up primary health care in London.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: During the next few weeks, can we have a debate on the high-speed rail link? It will not surprise my right hon. Friend to know that hon. Members representing Kent will put up a vigorous defence and call for environmental protection in what may be proposed. Those of us who represent north-west Kent will wish to discuss the prospects for jobs were an interchange station to be located there.

Mr. Newton: Although I come from the other side of the Thames, I well understand the concern felt in Kent. I cannot promise a debate in quite the way I was asked, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be responding to questions on Monday next.

Mr. George Foulkes: Can I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1504, which calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to step in and cap the rent increases in Kyle and Carrick, in the same way as he is able to cap poll tax rises?
[That this House deplores the council house rent increases in Kyle and Carrick, which are the largest in Scotland, and on average £5 per week, rising to over £15 per week at the top end; notes that this is a direct consequence of the change in political control at the local elections in 1992, and is a warning to voters in other parts of the United Kingdom; recognised that it will be impossible for most people to pay the increases without enormous hardship, since wages are increasing less than the level of inflation, or are frozen or even reduced; and calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to intervene to cap these rent rises at no more than the current level of inflation.]
Of course, Kyle and Carrick became Tory-controlled at the last local elections in Scotland. Can we have a debate on the subject next week, so that the record of Tory-controlled councils in Scotland, few though they are, can be exposed?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the increases to which he refers are entirely a matter for the local authority, and Ministers have no power to intervene.

Mr. Derek Enright: So far, the Leader of the House has been negative about having a debate on the mining industry next week. Can I put to him the urgency of a statement from the President of the Board of Trade next week on Grimethorpe pit, which supplies coal to industry? The industry that has been taking that coal is now suffering from lack of supplies. It is urgent that the pit be put back into production. Will the Leader of the House please help to do something about it?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Farther to the Leader of the House's previous answers on coal and the energy review, will he reflect on the fact that it would be completely illogical to have a Budget statement with tax-raising announcements without a White Paper on energy and a chance to debate the funding and taxation of sources of energy in Britain? It would be completely the wrong way round. We need the energy White Paper and a debate on that so that the Chancellor can make the right decisions on energy taxation in future.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the logic of the situation, but I have now said several times that my right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as he is able to do so. I cannot yet say when that will be.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House make an early statement resulting from his inquiries about marriages in the chapel of St. Mary Undercroft, which I suspect has been a voyage of discovery for both of us? Will he confirm that marriages according to the rites of the Church of England can take place in the chapel, under a licence issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury in an Act of 1533, and that future marriages depend on the registration of the chapel, which lies with the Lord Chief Chamberlain, the Lord Chancellor and Madam Speaker? If there is a fair wind for registration, what would be the parliamentary mechanism for achieving it?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is one example of what is not a business question. It was a question for the Lord President to answer when he comes to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on such matters. In this case, the Lord President is not in a position to answer such a question. I shall therefore pass on to Mr. Hughes.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Which one?

Madam Speaker: I am so sorry. I meant Robert Hughes; but now I know who the next questioner will be.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Leader of the House recollect that some weeks ago he said that he hoped that there would be an announcement soon on the transfer of the petroleum engineering division from London to Aberdeen? Bearing in mind that the Ernst and Young consultants' report has been in Government hands since 5 October, which is almost five months ago to the day, and that every written answer gets the same response—that a decision will be made soon—can he arrange for the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement next week? Let us get the decision over and done with, and stop dithering about.

Mr. Newton: I recollect the exchange some weeks ago, but I am not up to date with when a statement can be made. I shall certainly seek to ensure that I am better informed by the time that I answer questions next week.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Could I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1355, which was signed by 110 right hon. and hon. Members, on the decision of the Secretary of State for


Wales to authorise a waste disposal plant in my constituency, following the application by a dubious American firm with a long criminal record?
[That this House condemns the action of the Secretary of State for Wales in giving the go-ahead to the American concern Browning Ferris for the construction of a waste disposal plant in the Liswerry area of Newport, Gwent despite the unanimous opposition of the Newport Borough Council and the flagrant disregard of the wishes of the people of the town; and notes the questionable record of the company involved, the traffic hazard near to a heavily built-up area, the danger to cattle and agricultural products, the detrimental effect on property values and on health and the environment, which overall will have the effect of turning Newport, Gwent and South Wales into a dustbin for waste products from all over the world.]
Does the Leader of the House appreciate that that decision has caused great anger and dismay among my constituents? If the Government are going to make such controversial decisions in that questionable field, surely we should have a full debate on the matter in the House so that they can announce their policy.

Mr. Newton: Many decisions on planning matters are controversial, and I accept that that decision was. I understand that it was taken on the recommendation of an inspector following a full public inquiry, as is the case with most such decisions.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

BILL PRESENTED

DISABILITY (GRANTS)

Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. Nicholas Scott and Mr. Alistair Burt, presented (under Standing Order No. 48 (Procedure under bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to provide for the making of grants by the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland to the Independent Living (Extension) Fund, the Independent Living (1993) Fund and Motability: And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 25 February]

[MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

Several hon. Members: On a point of order—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before I take any points of order I have two announcements. First, I have concluded, after due reflection, that amendment No. 443 is not in order. Secondly, if Members have requested a separate Division on an amendment and I have decided to grant the request, I propose to announce my decision before the Committee begins the debate immediately preceding the separate Division. Thus, we are about to embark on a debate on amendment No. 18. When that debate is concluded I shall be prepared to permit a separate Division on amendment No. 28, before beginning the next debate, which is on amendment No. 29, on subsidiarity.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will understand my disappointment on your ruling, but, of course, I accept it, and I accept that your rulings on all such matters are final.
I ask for your further guidance on a related matter: our ability to table amendments to clause 1(2), which would express approval for some parts of the Maastricht treaty, for the purposes of the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, but not of other parts. You will be aware that I have been delving into the debates in Hansard covering the time when the Act was passed. In the debate on 2 February 1978 the then Minister of State, now Lord Judd, said in response to questions from the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench at the time and inquiring about the general point:
The other point, also properly raised by the hon. Gentleman, was whether Parliament could amend a Bill to authorise an increase in the Assembly's powers. Again, the answer is 'Yes.'
He added:
Parliament would not be able to alter the words of a treaty, but it could require the Government in some cases to ratify subject to a reservation."—[Official Report, 2 February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 834.]
In the light of that statement and of the recent House of Lords decision, which indicates that Ministers' explanations and statements at the Dispatch Box are to be taken as evidence of the meaning and intention of legislation, will you consider the matter further? I am not asking you to give further consideration to my amendment. I ask whether section 6 of the 1978 Act allows this House to express its approval of some parts of a treaty but not others, which is the inference to be drawn from the statement by the Minister of State in 1978.

The Chairman: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member has expressed his point of order. I shall consider the matters that he has raised, but he will understand that I will have to do so in the context of a written amendment.

Mr. Michael Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I fully understand and accept that you do not give reasons for your judgments and decisions about whether an amendment is in order. If amendment No. 443 was technically defective—as I and some others think that it might well have been—may I assume that a decision on a similar amendment, which was not defective, would not be pre-empted by your decision today?

The Chairman: I repeat what I told the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). I have to have something in writing before I can rule. Obviously, if it is a question of a minor technical matter, such as English, guidance will be given by the Clerks in the Public Bill Office.

Mr. George Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I appreciate your remarks in relation to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), which was similar to the starred amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. Clearly, we should all like to approach you to seek advice on how a similar ploy might be attempted again.
On the question of the admissibility of amendments broadly concerned with the social protocol, we have already mentioned that our ability to table them again and have them selected, as distinct from their being found to be in order, relates directly to your decision to allow another debate on the issues surrounding amendment No. 27.
I appreciate, Mr. Morris, that last Thursday you made it clear that you did not intend to take an early decision on the matter. May I ask your advice on where we stand in relation to further amendments that might relate to the part of the treaty that we have now passed, in terms of debating opportunity? That would help the Committee. I do not want to press you beyond the hint that you may have given in your statements last Thursday and on the previous Monday, but we should like to know whether amendments that might be deemed in order would have a reasonable chance of selection if you chose to allow further debate on the general subject.

The Chairman: It is not the practice of the Chair to consider starred amendments until they cease to be starred, so those on the Order Paper that are starred will be considered on Monday.
We are still some way off having to consider anything to do with amendment No. 27. As the hon. Gentleman will know, attempts are being made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to produce more amendments relating to this broad area. It would be wrong of me to make a judgment at this point on whether other amendments—or how many of them—may exist by that time. The nearer we get to it, the better my position will be to judge whether to accede to requests for a further debate.

Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Following the ruling of the Attorney-General on amendment No. 27 and its consequences, I think that there was a general view that

hon. Members would like a vote on whether the United Kingdom should adhere to the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. Are you not against that in principle?

The Chairman: I think that I need to study the amendments before I make any announcements.

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You did not mention in your statement my amendment No. 445, which is related to amendment No. 27, but which, it is proposed, should be included in the Bill as an exception from the provisions of the protocols. Am I to understand that you are still waiting to make a decision on that amendment, or do you agree that it is at order?
Amendments Nos. 441 and 442 both exclude the French and Portuguese protocols. Amendment No. 400, tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, excludes the United Kingdom's protocol in respect of the European central bank—and, of course, our opt-out—so it is similar to amendment No. 27.
Quite apart from the merits of my amendment, do you agree that it would be invidious to distinguish between it and others of a similar kind.

The Chairman: Hon. Members normally speak to their own amendments and can look after themselves without the assistance of other hon. Members, but, as a general rule, if, after it is no longer starred, an amendment is not on the Order Paper, it is not selected.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Morris. You referred to the need to have a written amendment to consider before making a ruling. I invite you to consider amendment No. 448 in the context of an appeal for a renewed debate on the social chapter. With your indulgence, Mr. Morris, may I take the opportunity to put before you certain factors to do with the previous debate on the social chapter which in my submission are relevant to your decision on whether to allow another debate—

The Chairman: Order. That is exactly what I will be considering. As I have already said, amendment No. 448 is starred.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. You will be aware that the Government are likely to be anxious to secure procedural motions later today. Through unusual channels I understand that the Government are in negotiation with some of the minor parties. Before any vote is taken today—

The Chairman: Order. Negotiations between the parties in the House are nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to complain about the Government or the Opposition, he knows where to do so. It is not the responsibility of the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In what I can only describe as a characteristically courteous note from you that I received today, you informed me in response to my request that you do not intend to call new clause 26, which


I have tabled, for a separate vote. The new clause enjoys immense support in Scotland, but that is not my point of order.
What criteria do you use, Mr. Morris, in determining whether to select or reject amendments and new clauses for votes?

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will understand that many factors come into that consideration.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Among the many considerations that you have to bear in mind when deciding whether to call an amendment, do you pay any attention—you will probably tell me that this is not true—to political alliances and shifts of opinion in the House? Is it conceivable, now that we are moving up towards Newbury, that the Liberal party is shifting its ground and pushing a bit harder against Maastricht? The party does not really mean that, but it might try it. Will you pay attention to that over the next three months?

The Chairman: Certainly not.

Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. In view of the changed domestic arrangements that we would be required to make, I wonder whether you have had any communication from the Government to the effect that, after moving the 10 o'clock motion next Thursday, they will intend to take the debate through the weekend?

The Chairman: I am concerned about today, not next week.

Mr. Cash: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Morris. Do you agree that if amendment No. 27 were passed, it would be essential for the matters in question to be complemented by provisions in the Bill, so that it would be quite wrong not to consider selecting an amendment that translated the effects of amendment No. 27 into the Bill? Parliament would then have instructed the Government, by passing the amendment, that the social protocol should be excluded from the treaty and, hence, from the Bill.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he is well aware of the Report stage.
Without further ado, we may now begin discussing the amendments.

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 138d on page 42 of Cm 1934)'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following: Amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 9, after 'II' insert
'(except Article 158 on page 44 of Cm 1934 relating to the appointment of the Commission).'.
Amendment No. 34, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(with the proviso that the Government of the United Kingdom shall before the nomination of persons they intend to appoint as members of the Commission seek the approval of the House of Commons to the nomination of those persons).'.
Amendment No. 99, in page 1, line 9, after 'II'. insert'

(except Article 146 on page 43 of Cm 1934 which relates to the composition of the Council of Ministers)'.
Amendement No. 168, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 8d on page 12 of Cm 1934)'.
Amendement No. 221, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 189c(a) on page 52 of Cm 1934'.
Amendement No. 222, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 189c(e) on page 52 of Cm 1934'.
Amendement No. 235, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 138b'.
Amendement No. 236, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 138e'.
Amendement No. 393, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 138(c) as referred to in Article G on page 42 of Command Paper number 1934'.
Amendement No. 394, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 147 as referred to in Article G on page 43 of Command Paper number 1934'.
Amendement No. 395, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 151 as referred to in Article G on page 43 of Command Paper number 1934'.
Amendement No. 396, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 159 as referred to in Article G on page 45 of Command Paper number 1934'.
Amendement No. 397, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 160 as referred to in Article G on page 45 of Command Paper number 1934'.
Amendement No. 398, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 175 as referred to in Article G on page 47 of Command Paper number 1934'.
Amendement No. 430, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 157(2) on page 44 of Cm. 1934 relating to the independence of members of the Commission).'.
Amendement No. 19, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Article 10, Clause 2 on pages 60 and 61 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 21, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Article 9 on page 60 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 22, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Article 10 on page 60 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 23, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Article 20a on page 62 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 24, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Article 20b on page 62 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 25, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Article 20d on page 62 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 26, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Chapter V on page 65 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 136, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'except paragraph 3 of Article 21'.
Amendement No. 137, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'except Article 20d'.
Amendement No. 410, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Articles 7 to 17 on pages 60 to 62 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 413, in page 1, line 9, after 'III', insert
'(except Articles 20a to 24 on pages 62 to 63 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 141, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
'except paragraph 3 of Article 108'.
Amendement No. 142, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
'except Article 107d'.
Amendement No. 414, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
'(except Articles 107 a-c on pages 69 and 70 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 417, in page 1, line 9, after 'IV', insert
'(except Articles 160 a-c on pages 74 to 76 of Cm 1934).'.
Amendement No. 55, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not Article 137 in Title II thereof'
Amendement No. 143, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not paragraph 3 of Article 21 in Title III thereof'.
Amendement No. 144, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert 


'but not of the second paragraph of Article 24 in Title III thereof'.
Amendment No. 148, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not Article 107a in Title IV thereof.
Amendment No. 219, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not Article 189a(2) on page 50 of Cm 1934'.
Amendment No. 220, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not Article 189b on pages 51 and 52 of Cm 1934'.
Amendment No. 285, in page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 426, in page 1, line 17, at end add
'with the proviso that Article 138(3) is fully implemented in the United Kingdom before the fourth direct elections to the European Parliament.'.
New clause 21—Rejection of common position—

'(1) Where, in pursuance of Article 189b of the Treaty of Union, Paragraph 2 (c) or (d) of that Article, the European Parliament has given notice that it intends to reject the common position of the Council of Ministers of the Community, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament in a Command Paper an account of the Commission proposal and the view of Her Majesty's Government concerning that proposal the reasons for the Council common position, its reaction to any proposal of the European Parliament, and any subsequent proceedings of the Concilliation Committee and subsequent events provided for in the Article.
(2) Any Report shall include reference to any United Kingdom parliamentary proceeding related to that proposal and may include matter relating to more than one proposal.'.

Mr. Robertson: This amendment is designed only to allow a debate. It is of a probing nature, and it will not be pressed to a vote. The debate is about the institutions that drive and control the European Community, and it goes to the very heart of the Maastricht treaty and its ambition for an economic and monetary union in our continent, balanced by developed political institutions that will ensure that any such union will be responsible not to crude market forces or faceless bureaucrats and bankers but to the people of Europe.
The debate also provides us with vivid evidence of the Government's real failure at Maastricht in December 1991—their abject failure on behalf of the British people to see that by downgrading democracy, accountability and European decentralisation, just as they dismiss and degrade such things at home, they leave it to others to set the agenda and to mould the future decision-making structures of the European Community.
It was in that historic failure to see the central importance of democratic, responsive, open and accountable institutions that the Government sowed the seeds of the present corrosive conflict that lies at the heart of the Conservative party. It is a shambles. There is a rabble that is out of control. The members have not the slightest atom of knowledge of where they will go in Europe or anywhere else. The 1922 Committee will be having its weekly blood bath in just over half an hour's time. The committee was once seen widely in the political world as the praetorian guard of Tory internal discipline. Week by week, it resembles a badly scripted Marx Brothers comedy.

Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: Talk about the starring role.

Mr. Marlow: Was that my cue? The hon. Gentleman is having a spot of fun. Before he goes any further, will he

confirm that there is a total identity of views between himself and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on this issue?

Mr. Robertson: It is necessary only to mention the Marx Brothers and up pops the hon. Gentleman. I was classically on cue. I believe that I have the total support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the basis of what I have said and what I shall say.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way.

Mr. Robertson: I shall give way in a moment. I shall build on the spirit of unity, not qualify it. In the past few weeks, my hon. Friend and I have probably agreed on more things than we have agreed on in the past few years.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, we have been doing very well running the Tories ragged, and I am all for that. I have news for my hon. Friend: he has moved an amendment and I shall vote for it.

Mr. Robertson: I had hoped that the shambles on the Government Benches would have concentrated my hon. Friend's mind. When I said that I was moving the amendment for debating purposes, I thought that my hon. Friend would join me. The Lobbies are, of course, open to anyone. If my hon. Friend feels like voting to remove from the treaty the provisions that allow citizens of Europe to petition the European Parliament, I am sure that he will find some good reason for doing so.
The Government preach openness, but at Maastricht they resisted any move to open up the law-making process that goes on behind closed doors in the Council of Ministers. They were content to leave power in the hands of ambassadors, who meet every day as members of the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the European Community. They, the representatives, are the real rulers of Europe.
The Government preach democracy over bureaucracy, but, at Maastricht, they resisted any new powers for the European Parliament to supervise the increasing lawmaking powers of the Commission and the Council. Long ago, such powers left national parliaments well behind those bodies. The Government preach flexibility and the taking of decisions at the level that is closest to the people, but at Maastricht they fought against any change to the influence and powers of the unelected Commission. It remained virtually unaffected and unreformed by the treaty, which was signed by Ministers at Maastricht December 1991.
The Conservative party and Ministers preach about consolidating and entrenching the powers of member states, but their attitude to any vote on the social chapter in the House of Commons shows only too well that their contempt for democratic institutions at the European level is matched by their contempt for any dissent by Parliament.
The right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State, is serving out his notice with patience and fortitude. He is wandering along the Corridors like some Flying Dutchman. It is ironic that he and others a re telling us that democracy is at the heart of the Government's crusade. They then tell us, in effect, that Parliament can say anything and do anything and that they will ignore us when Divisions take place. They may think that they can get away with that, but the British people will not let that happen.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Even if one tenth of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is true, why is he not pushing the amendment to a Division?

Mr. Robertson: The amendment would remove from the treaty the power of European citizens to petition the European Parliament on issues of concern. There is no reason why we would want to remove that power from the treaty. Perhaps the briefing room in Great College street will produce a brief for the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition's amendments next time round. I am sure that we shall welcome the hon. Gentleman when he has everything correct and proper.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Opposition's posturing is designed only to take the opportunitity to try to present an impression that the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench have a role in these proceedings. The whole thing is nonsense and a caricature of the parliamentary process, but that is the burden of the argument that lies behind all the Opposition's amendments. The Opposition are posturing so that they might have first gabble at the microphone to assure us that the Labour party is still in existence. The truth and reality is that a proper discussion continues, but it is a sham and nonsense for those on the Opposition Front Bench to come to an arrangement to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Minister of State.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman would say that in any circumstance. He knows, perhaps more than most, that the only way in which we can have a debate of any sort —I am sure that he is not suggesting that we should avoid debate—is to table amendments that are in order. The only amendments that will be regarded as acceptable by the Chair are those that seek to delete parts of the treaty. That applies even to those parts of the treaty that we support. We are unable to debate the issues that are of concern to Parliament—the hon. Gentleman and I, as well as the wider world outside—without using the mechanism of amendments that seek to delete parts of the treaty. We are reflecting the reality of the procedures of the House of Commons, not posturing.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will appreciate that it is rather too easy nowadays to make fun of the disarray that is to be seen on the Conservative Benches. It is manifest to anyone. We have only to nod to the occasional Conservative Back-Bench Member in the Corridors, or even beyond them, to learn how deep is the discontent with the right hon. Member for Watford—which is pretty well a permanent tradition in the Tory party—and a much wider group of people, including the Prime Minister, whom Conservative Members voted in only two years ago.
Ministers are now coming out in the open; they are emerging from the closet; we are hearing confessions; there are admissions that the Maastricht strategy was wrong all the time. On Tuesday, in the Financial Times, the admirable Mr. Ivo Dawnay, who is soon to leave to become foreign editor of the Major-loving Sunday Telegraph, told a startled world that the Government have
set up a high-level committee to draw up a British blueprint for reforms to the European Community institutions.
It "reflects", he says,
Mr. Hurd's growing conviction that the controversy over the Maastricht treaty is in part the consequence of 'reactive' as opposed to 'active' diplomacy.

Now that the Foreign Secretary has got rid of the right hon. Member for Watford, he can afford to be honest about how the Government got it wrong.
If we continue to read the article, we come to the triumph of exaggerated delusion over bitter experience. It states:
Mr. Hurd concluded that by promoting a British vision of 'a more flexible and decentralised Community', the Conservative party would be able to reunite after the internal strife provoked by the treaty.
The final concession, mea culpa or ultimate self-condemnation comes in the final paragraph of this short but devastating article. It reads:
A senior official said that Britain had failed to articulate its vision of the Community early enough in the policy-making process, fuelling the impression that 'we are constantly being shifted by foreigners'.
I do not know whether that is a reference to the right hon. Member for Watford, whose foreign connections are well known and whose linguistic skills have been tested even in the European Parliament, but it suggests that there is a confession in writing that the Foreign Secretary admits that the entire strategy was wrong and that out of the closets of the Foreign Office will come the new solution, the new blueprint or the new vision that will unite the hon. Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) with those who sit on the Government Front Bench, who take the Euro-fanatical position. The problem facing the Government is that they are deeply centralising in Britain as they are in Europe.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has referred, probably fairly, to discontent within the Foreign Office—I do not know whether it is true —and discontent within the Conservative party. For all we know, there may be discontent within the Labour party. Does he accept that the real discontent is among the people of Britain who find that the Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are opposed to giving them the opportunity to decide the future of their sovereignty? Would not it help to resolve all the long, tedious arguments and all the complaints that are made about different areas if the hon. Gentleman and his party, which has always fought valiantly for people's rights, said that the people should decide the issue, not Members of Parliament?

Mr. Robertson: I have heard that speech from the hon. Gentleman so often that I could probably deliver it better than he can. It comes ill from somebody who is part of a party that supported the poll tax during a long period when the people were crying out for some sort of salvation from the pain of that. Championing the voice of the people is not something one hears with great authenticity from the Conservative party.
We have been around these debates for a long time and Parliament is the right place in which to debate the matter. First, the British people would not have known of the Government's contempt for democracy and for democratic institutions had they not had the opportunity of witnessing the volte face occasioned by the competing legal judgments on amendment No. 27. Secondly, it will be in this Parliament—it would be inconceivable in a referendum—that the people and their representatives will have a voice on the social chapter and the social protocol


of the Maastricht treaty. There is no way that a yes/no question in a referendum would permit the opportunity for a separate view to be taken on the social chapter. That is only one of the many arguments that can be deployed against a referendum. However, the Committee will come to that issue later.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: A large consensus in the Committee in support of the Bill and the treaty remains a permanent feature of these prolonged debates. Is not the answer to the assertion of discontent the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman noted, the so-called chief pro-referendum anti-federal candidate in Bath got 117 votes and the candidate for the same grouping in my constituency at the last election got 49 votes? The real discontent of the British public is that we are obliged, involuntarily, to spend longer on these debates than we would do otherwise because of the objections of a small minority of anti-Maastricht Members from both sides of the Committee who are deliberately prolonging the debates by unnecessary filibustering, so preventing us from discussing—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is for the Chair to judge those last matters, which relate to the conduct of the debate.

Mr. Robertson: In European debates one must always watch when someone intervenes in order to help. I know that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) had that intention in mind. I go along with certain elements of what he said and I accept that the Labour party conference took the view that the Maastricht treaty as a whole was better than any of the available alternatives, but I do not go along with everything else that he says. I believe, and I have believed since the beginning of the process, that Parliament has the right and the duty to scrutinise in some detail the crucial issues concerned with that.
Although there are other issues that should be being debated here—the economy is paramount among them —the reality is that Parliament must still take its time over something that will have a direct effect on our future and the future of many people in Europe. I do not denigrate those on either side of the House—I have no intention of falling out with them at this stage, certainly not at this stage in the evening—who have a different view. They are entitled to put it and at the end of the day the votes will dictate the pace.

Dr. Godman: A moment ago my hon. Friend mentioned in passing the Government's highly centralised nature. Does he agree that, even though the concept of federalism is nowhere to be found in the English text of the treaty, the process of federalisation will be given a huge impetus by its ratification? That may be perfectly acceptable to elected representatives in the 16 German lander, or the regional governments in Spain, but, given this Government's distorted view of federalism, it gives us cause for considerable concern.

Mr. Robertson: That depends on what is meant by federalism. That is one of the great problems with such an emotive word. In the past, the word has confused rather than illuminated debate. For many of our continental partners, federalism means precisely the decentralisation of which my hon. Friend speaks; it means a separation of the powers. If that is the context within which it is debated and discussed, we would all go along with that. We have

no interest in a unitary European state. We want no united states of Europe that is built on some sort of central power. I do not believe that the majority of people in Europe have any interest in anything like that either. Their cherishing of their individual national identities and institutions is as great as that of anybody in the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I should like to make progress.
Following on the point that my hon. Friend made, the problem for the Government is that they are a centralising Government. They are contemptuous of democracy and accountability. We have seen that in Britain with their attitude to local government. That is mirrored by their contempt for the European Parliament's need to act at a European level as well. The European Parliament needs to act in areas where law making has left national Parliaments and disappeared behind the closed doors of the Council of Ministers. We have decisions on laws which affect the British people in their intimate daily life. Laws which take supremacy over all national laws are increasingly made by qualified majority vote.

Mr. Bryan Gould: My hon. Friend said correctly a moment ago that, in continental language, federalism means a derogation of power to the component parts of whatever entity we are considering. But does not that postulate the existence of a central entity in the first place—a European super-state, the very European union which is described as being established in the opening words of the Maastricht treaty? Is not the reason, as my hon. Friend rightly says, that we are so often at cross-purposes when we discuss the term federalism that we persist in thinking that it is a matter of passing limited powers upwards, whereas our continental partners have already reached the point in their minds and in practice of establishing a European union from which limited powers will be devolved downwards? Is not the real point that the Maastricht treaty establishes not a federation but a union, a super-state, which has not yet been revealed in its full concept to the British people?

Mr. Robertson: I strongly disagree with my hon. Friend. I completely dissociate myself from that concept. If one were to believe some of the rhetoric— [Interruption.] The Minister of State should not be sitting there shouting about united parties, especially since he is about to disappear from the Front Bench of his own disunited party.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): As the hon. Gentleman sought to entertain the House for about 20 minutes pointing out what he perceived to be divisions inside the Conservative party, it is only fair to point out that a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends are also seeking to prevent the United Kingdom from ratifying the treaty. With regard to my own fate, I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. I intend to support the Administration vigorously, whether it be from this Bench or other Benches.

Mr. Robertson: That is what the right hon. Gentleman told Lady Thatcher when she was leader of the Conservative party.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who, on an issue of principle,


resigned as a Front-Bench spokesman and returned to the Back Benches. There is disagreement about Maastricht in each of the political parties. But we are not the party of government; nor are we suffering from the same chasm as the party of government, which has led it to the paralysed condition in which it finds itself today.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I shall allow the Minister to intervene after I have dealt with the serious point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham made, although it is probably more relevant to the next debate on subsidiarity.
I do not believe that the other 11 Community countries intend to create a European super-state, from which they will derogate a few minor powers. There is nothing to suggest that any of them have an interest or desire so to do. They believe that power should be taken to the centre only where it makes sense and is relevant, and that the majority of powers and influence should be retained at national level. That is why the creation of these institutions is so important and why the power of, for instance, the European Parliament is so relevant.
The House believes in its own role. It believes in its own importance in scrutinising legislation, but we have reached a stage, from which even my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham cannot seek to go back, where decisions are increasingly taken by qualified majority vote in the Council of Ministers. Decisions about laws that will affect British people are taken behind the closed doors of the Council of Ministers and are never scrutinised again by elected representatives of the people. The Maastricht treaty's provisions on the European Parliament seek to correct that.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and am delighted—

Mr. Cash: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) knows that we cannot have two hon. Members standing at the same time. I understood that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) had given way to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) dissociated himself from the views of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). Is not it revealing, even on the terms of intervention of the hon. Member for Dagenham, that the assumption is that the Maastricht treaty seeks to derogate European powers downwards? Hon. Members who voted for the Single European Act, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), do not recognise that the Maastricht treaty introduces decentralising powers into what could have become a more centralised structure. The treaty brings institutions closer to the people, which is what makes us so keen to get on and ratify it.

Mr. Robertson: I am pleased to act as a vehicle for debate in the Conservative party. I do not dissociate myself from the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham, but I disagree with his interpretation of what is happening in Europe. From my experience of meeting people from various political parties, but mainly from the

socialist and social democratic parties, I can say that it is not their intention to move in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests that we are inexorably taking. It is important that we strengthen existing European institutions to prevent the possibility of such a thing happening.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Robertson: I will give way, first, to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), from whom I have never run away, because I have always considered him to be the best of fun.

Mr. Gapes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the interpretation of federalism in the Federal Republic of Germany is not centralised union or a super-state? It is inaccurate, therefore, to suggest that the European concept was based on a centralised European super-state. The concept of Europe is clearly different in various countries, but the German federal model, which owes much to the democratic changes that were made by British and other occupation forces after the second world war, is one of decentralisation without a centralised super-state.
Does my hon. Friend further agree that, unlike last year's Conservative party conference, the Labour party conference held a vote on whether to endorse the Maastricht treaty? It said that the treaty was the best obtainable measure, whereas the Conservative party uses a clapometer to gauge how many people applaud Norman Tebbit and how many—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions should be short. The hon. Gentleman's intervention sounded more like a speech.

Mr. Robertson: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. His words are extremely wise on both counts. He and I have attended many European meetings, at which we did not spot the federalising, centralising obsession about which some hon. Members speak. He rightly states that the Labour party agreed its policy on Maastricht in a democratic vote at its conference. That represents our policy, and we consulted the people, which I am sure would appeal to the hon. Member for Southend, East.

Mr. Cash: At its last conference, the Labour party decided to oppose a referendum on the Maastricht treaty and that, apparently, is the position of its Front-Bench spokesmen, but we understand that the Leader of the Opposition has now said that Labour would like a referendum on proportional voting. Can he reconcile those two completely different positions?

Mr. Robertson: I am not aware that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he wants a referendum. He has not said that—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a broad debate, but that seems to be stretching it far too wide. We shall debate referendums later, not now.

Mr. Robertson: I appreciate and respond instantly to your interpretation, Dame Janet.
I always welcome an intervention from the hon. Member for Stafford. I referred to him in the House Magazine this week, because the week before last I


attended a Scottish Statutory Instruments Committee considering the Lanarkshire enterprise zone, believing that I had escaped the dreadful world of Maastricht. I was horrified to see the hon. Members for Stafford and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) sitting on the other side of the Committee. I thought that they were being permanently mobilised around the House of Commons to scare me, but I realised that they had to attend as a punishment.
I described them as the Hale and Pace of the Maastricht debates, not as a simple point of abuse but because I recall the famous Hale and Pace sketch, which I am sure hon. Members will remember vividly, in which they were acting the part of two cooks testing a microwave. At one point, to the horror of the watching audience, they took a cat and said, "The microwave is extremely useful for cooking cats: all you do is open the door, put the cat in, close the door and turn on the microwave. Here is one that we prepared earlier", and this frazzled object was put up to the audience of children and animal lovers, who were horrified by the low taste of the sketch.
It seems that some Members on the other side of the argument continue to hold up the frazzled cat as an example of what would happen if Maastricht were ratified, just as they held up frazzled cats in the debate on the Single European Act—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have had enough of frazzled cats.

Mr. Robertson: I now appreciate, Dame Janet, that to choose the day when the occupant of the Chair is a former president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Animals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cruelty".]—for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was perhaps not a master stroke of timing.
The hon. Member for Stafford was in favour of the proposal and did not produce the frazzled cat on that occasion. However, horror stories are endlessly put about; it would he better to concentrate on reality rather than the powers of imagination.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I know that my hon. Friend wants to intervene, but I must make progress. I am sure that he will find something to object to in the rest of my speech and I shall be glad to give way to him at that point.
The European Parliament is not popular in the House. It still does not command wide popularity in the country or the same voting enthusiasm as domestic parliamentary elections, but few people who watch Europe would doubt that the calibre of its membership has improved considerably and that its role and influence have increased and will inevitably become greater.
We dismiss, ignore or ridicule the European Parliament, its members and its powers at our peril. We must set about ensuring that the role of its Members is built into what we do here because the future of our country in Europe is not an issue on which we can afford to delude ourselves into thinking that our two institutions are separate, independent or distinct for the carrying out of the tasks before us.
I wish to ask the Minister of State to answer one question. Following the Maastricht decision, it was decided at Edinburgh to increase the number of European Parliament seats by six. The Government have still not

said how the seats are to be created, although we have been told that a new Boundary Commission might have to be instituted for the purpose. That will require primary legislation. This afternoon, the Leader of the House was unable to answer my right hon. Friend the deputy leader of the Labour party, but I hope that the Minister of State, who is more intimately involved in these affairs, will be able to tell us when the urgent need—urgent for all political parties—will produce an answer as to when the primary legislation can be introduced.

Sir Russell Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman were faced with a proposition that the six seats were to be treated as added member seats, similar to the German electoral system, in order to correct the lack of proportionality in elections to the European Parliament, how would he react?

Mr. Robertson: The Government have already decided that the matter will be decided by a Boundary Commission and by an extension of the number of existing seats. The Labour party is currently engaged in a major study of electoral reform, and I do not want to pre-empt its findings. However, speaking personally, I believe that the worst way of introducing any type of electoral reform or proportional representation would be to say that the creation of six seats was to cause a major change to the British constitution merely because we did not have time to establish a Boundary Commission. There would be plenty of time if the Government would start now and then consider the future role for European Parliament seats when we are clear about what will happen.
The European Parliament gains some new arid significant powers under the Maastricht treaty. Of course, that is despite animated opposition from the Government to any extension in European Parliament powers. In December 1991 the Foreign Secretary said:
We are not persuaded by the case … for adding again to the powers of the European Parliament".
However, it has new powers. It gains a new power of veto. The negative assent procedure is the Euro-jargon method of dodging the difficult word "veto", but, in certain restricted, although important, aspects of law making, a veto is exactly what the European Parliament will have.
That means that the European Parliament now has a total of five co-decision powers to influence policy in the Council of Ministers. All are complicated and dense and virtually all are incomprehensible, even to the Members of the European Parliament. The Maastricht treaty provides it with a new influence over the appointment of the European Commission, its President and its programme. There is a new right of citizens to petition the European Parliament, and the creation of an ombudsman to allow individuals to have Community maladministration investigated.
However, these powers are in no way sufficient to fill what is fashionably called the "democratic deficit". They in no way properly reflect the fact that there is more qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers—and there is a big extension of qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers despite opposition from the Government.
In Glasgow in 1991 the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Government were opposed to
significantly extended qualified majority voting".
However, there have been 61 new extensions of qualified majority voting in the treaty signed at Maastricht. Decisions on laws are now taken and implemented without


any further reference to the elected representatives of the people who will be affected by them. That has to be unacceptable and, at the 1996 intergovernmental conferences, the accountability of the Council to elected representatives must be high on the agenda.
The European Commission came out of the Maastricht process virtually unscathed. Despite the fact that it is unelected and has considerable power and influence, and despite the fact that there is growing concern at its monopoly on initiating legislation, its powers were scarcely trimmed and it was not made more accountable. In fact, having been given the new power to fix penalties for not complying with European Community laws and decisions, the Commission has been handed significant influence and control.
It will remain one of the ironies of contemporary European history that it was largely Lady Thatcher's enthusiasm for penalties and fines against Governments for non-compliance with Community laws which will now give the European Commission, which she so hated and loathed, the most remarkable new power to enforce Euro-policy.

Mr. Spearing: Is not that an example of the greater central powers which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) cited a moment ago? We already have a single market and a single Council determining what that market shall be. We have a prospective single currency, a prospective single bank and a commitment, if the Bill is passed, to a single foreign policy. How can my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) deny that that is the most extreme form of centralism?

Mr. Robertson: It is centralism only if the other institutions do not have the proper balance to allow the will of the people to be heard. We are creating new institutions where we believe them to be appropriate at a European level. There is nothing wrong with that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has a deep interest in environmental policies. I am sure that he will agree that national policies alone on airborne pollution make no sense in the modern world. Laws relating to pollution, and air pollution in particular, must be made at a European level. The decision has been taken—

Mr. Peter Shore: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I shall answer my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South and then I shall happily give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
The decisions were taken, and we are now considering how Community institutions can be sufficiently strengthened to ensure that the will of the people is expressed in relation to what powers we, as a nation or group of nations, choose to concede at a European level. That is why so much of my speech, which has already gone on too long, has been devoted to the powers of the European Parliament. We cannot say that decisions have been ceded to the European level and, at the same time, say that we shall not give added power to the European Parliament —although the House has already given them away.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is obviously ready to transfer to the upper tier of new authority being created in

Europe virtually all the major powers of self government, and he justifies that on the grounds that there they will be taken at a more appropriate level. He cites the environment. If we are serious about the environment, we should look for a solution not at the western European half-continental level, but at the global level. Does my hon. Friend advocate our becoming part of a world government, part of an expanded United Nations? What would he say, for example, to the proposition that we should be better defended by a huge European army or a combined European defence force? Would he be happy to hand over our powers of self defence to such a body? Would he not prefer such arrangements to come under NATO rather than being taken away from us to be decided by a supranational law-making body?

6 pm

Mr. Robertson: I have been through all that before with my right hon. Friend. In the days when we used to agree, when we stood side by side in the internal battles in the Labour party of those times, we stood on defence and on protecting the cause of NATO, to which this country long ago voluntarily ceded one of the most important elements of sovereignty. Now, as ever, if there were an attack on one of the nation states in NATO the armed forces of all the nation states would automatically and immediately be put under an integrated military command. That is the principle—a principle which my right hon. Friend stood by, and one which we safeguarded within the Labour party at that time.
I believe, and I believe that my party believes, that we should cede sovereignty only where appropriate and relevant. That is what we have done in the past. Where sovereignty has been ceded, whether previously or now, we must ensure that we have created the democratic institutions in the Community that will give the people of Europe the right to say what the new laws will be.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I intend to finish my speech shortly, so, however tempting it may be to have a generalised debate, I shall resist the temptation. I see that my speech has already outlasted three different occupants of the Chair, and that serves as a reminder for me.
The debate on the institutions of the European Community is not simply about remote organisations loosely referred to as, and sometimes seen as, "Brussels". The institutions, their strengths, their representativeness, their openness and their closeness to the people of Europe will determine, by and large, whether the successful system of western European co-operation, from which this generation has benefited so much, will be sustained and will survive the new pressures facing Europe and the world.
The Foreign Secretary was right when he told the Financial Times that we needed a British blueprint for European Community reform, and that this country has been too negative and reactive, and not nearly constructive and positive enough, in what we say and do. The right hon. Gentleman was also right to say that as a result
we are constantly being shifted by foreigners".
He is correct, even if his awakening to that fact is belated. The drawing up of that blueprint, that vision—the definition of British interests in Europe—must not be the business simply of the committee combining Foreign Office and Cabinet personnel that the Financial Times tells


us has been set up. That task, which is so crucial to the future of this country, must include other political parties, and the House and its Committees.
One of the clearest and most depressing failures of the British role in Europe—here, we are markedly different from other partner states—is the Government's unwillingness to reach a national consensus at least on the objectives of Britain in Europe. We must look positively not only at what can be achieved at the European level—the whole of the European level—but at what the price of failure would be.
Today we face economic turmoil unprecedented in modern times, with soaring unemployment, deepening recession, destructive economic competition and beggar-my-neighbour attitudes all combining to leave the whip hand with the bankers and speculators. We also face a growing political crisis, which derives partly from the recessionary pressures, with political instability, vicious nationalism and pernicious forms of racism on the march. Those are formidable and immediate dangers for our continent. If we are ever tempted to ignore those perils and problems, we risk something quite horrible happening.
We must not underestimate what is happening in our continent and to our people today. That is why it is crucial that the creation and reinforcement of robust, democratic, popular institutions for European unity should remain the collective objective of all who care about the future of our continent.

Mr. Cash: The speech by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) showed a complete lack of observation and interest in what is really going on in the Committee. He made no serious attempt to tackle the real questions which lie at the heart of the provisions that we are supposed to be considering.
The hon. Gentleman blithely and absurdly referred to European institutions as if they are just another piece of paper that does not matter much. He says that the amendments are only probing amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech to say that Labour Members were posturing, but the hon. Gentleman's speech was not so much posturing as imposturing—an attempt merely to probe a matter which goes to the heart of the democracy of the House and of the relationship between the people of this country and their Government. The hon. Member for Hamilton and many of his colleagues make no serious attempt to investigate the basis on which the charade of the Maastricht treaty and the Bill has been constructed, or the deception that lies at its heart.
What is really taking place is a deliberate attempt to drain away the real powers of the House. Attempts—albeit fairly modest—have been made to sustain the overall thrust of a move towards a unitary state, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said earlier: towards the creation of a European union and the construction of all the framework necessary to achieve that objective.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend has postured pretty effectively throughout the Committee's proceedings on the reasons why he felt able to support the Single European Act. Can he posture a little further and explain to the Committee precisely in which respects the group of

amendments under consideration breaks new ground that was not broken by the Single European Act, which he supported?

Mr. Cash: The simple answer is, because this is a gravitational pull, which is moving the whole process from the basis of the Single European Act, which was a perfectly reasonable basis to start from, into a relationship which has been materially changed by the provisions on economic and monetary union, especially those connected with stage 2. The Minister understands that perfectly well, as he has been a party to it throughout.
The Minister appeared before the Select Committee on European Legislation the other day. As will be seen from the transcript of the Committee's proceedings, he went to considerable lengths to attempt to divert attention from the provisions of stage 2 on economic and monetary union. He did so because he knows that they are having a profound impact not only in their gravitational pull but in cutting the umbilical cord through the creation of a European Monetary Institute, which in turn will require the Governor of the Bank of England neither to seek nor to take instructions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House, and thereby from the people of this country —the people who put us all into our positions as Members of Parliament, and put the Government into power. If the Minister does not think that those provisions go beyond gravitational pull and actually create a completely new dimension, I should like to know what his answer would be.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I should like my hon. Friend to address himself to the question that I put to him. As he now seems to be alleging that the Maastricht treaty is the greatest constitutional outrage, theft and deception in his political lifetime and in mine, and as he voted for the Single European Act, in respect of which there was a timetable motion, may I ask at what point it became apparent to him that the gravitational force to which he refers was pulling him in the wrong direction? Was it just after he voted for the Single European Act, or when he fought the last election�ž

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is all very well, but we really ought to get back to the powers of the European Communities.

Mr. Cash: I am always very glad to observe a Minister receiving a rebuke from the Chair. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has retained his sense of humour, which was evidenced by his question.
The Single European Act is quite different from these provisions. There is a huge difference between what is provided for in the Act that we passed in 1986 and the enormous changes resulting from this treaty's impact on our democratic rights—not only the rights of Parliament but the rights of the country as a whole.
The provisions with which we are dealing commence primarily with the European Parliament. Following what my right hon. Friend the Minister said a moment ago, I should like to make a point about the way in which the powers being granted by this treaty to the European Parliament dovetail with the arrangements under article 138a, which says:
Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union.


Contrary to what the Minister of State has just said—as if this were a matter of no interest or consequence to anybody—what we have here represents a complete change from the Single European Act. The fact that we are dealing with political parties at European level—something to be regarded as a factor for integration—is a completely new dimension.
Let us consider for a moment the status of the European People's party in the European Parliament. That party's constitution is unashamedly and avowedly federal. Its objective is a united states of Europe. It has no doubt that that is the direction in which it wants to go.

Mr. Hoon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cash: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he knows a good deal about the EPP.

Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman was referring to the European People's party, it occurred to me that, since the Conservative party has joined the EPP, it is likely that he will be a member of that organisation.

Mr. Cash: I am delighted to be able to respond to that point. Indeed, I was just about to give my reasons for wanting to have nothing to do with the EPP. In fact, I do not want my party to be directly associated with any such organisation. The avowed objective of the EPP is a federal and/or unitary Europe. Furthermore, it is tied to the Christian Democrats, which has many policies quite at variance with those upon which we, as Conservatives, expect to represent our constituents.
It caused me considerable concern to note that the application for membership of the European People's party—the letter that was written about a year and a half ago by the then chairman of the Conservative party, Christopher Patten, with the full consent of the Prime Minister—was couched in terms making it quite clear that a marriage was taking place. These vestal virgins had been taken to the altar, and had consummated a marriage with the European People's party. Surprise, surprise—the EPP's press release came out in the middle of our general election, lest anyone should notice what was going on.
Thus Conservative MEPs are in a rather difficult situation. They constitute a political party operating at European level. This is indeed important as a factor for integration into the union. They are pursuing a policy—apparently endorsed by the Government: something that I find it very difficult to understand and hope may yet be unravelled—that amounts to support not only for integration and European union, as described in article 138a, but for the whole concept of a united states of Europe. In fact, some of the documentation goes even further by saying that the European union would be a state with all the characteristics of sovereignty. I view these developments with considerable concern, and I regard the Minister's remarks of a few moments ago as quite extraordinary.

Mr. Knapman: If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is right in suggesting that federalism is decentralising, would it be a good idea to substitute federal union for even closer union? I thought that we had spent a great deal of time trying to get rid of federalism and introduce even closer union. We seem to be in a muddle in this matter.

Mr. Cash: Indeed we are in a muddle—some less so than others. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Only a few weeks ago, Mr. Bangemann said that we ought to face up to the fact that we were moving into a federal system. In every European capital, one finds a perfectly straightforward and honest position. People in European capitals, like people in the institutions of the European Communities, say that they want and intend to achieve a united states of Europe, with a federal and/or unitary system. At least they have the honesty to admit that that is what is going on. I cannot understand why people in this country do not say the same thing. There are, of course, exceptions, like myself, who have every intention of resisting this all the way down the line.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is always courteous, and is normally very clear, even if one disagrees with what he says. He said a moment ago that he is against muddle. That being the case, will he please stop using the words "federal and/or unitary". He has now used them twice. A system could be federal or unitary, but not federal and unitary. The two concepts are fundamentally different.

Mr. Cash: As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gentle rebuke. However, I chose my words carefully. It is almost impossible to give a precise definition of any one federal system. The division of the functions, powers and duties that are transferred upwards and downwards, particularly having regard to the concept of subsidiarity—which we shall discuss later—creates the very confusion and contradiction to which I am referring. The problem was not created by me; it is inherent in the way in which the whole package has been put together.

Mr. David Winnick: It is interesting that the remarks of Martin Bangemann, a vice-president of the Commission, have not been the subject of any controversy outside Britain. None of his colleagues, and no one in Germany, has said that he is wrong. He is saying out loud what others, for obvious diplomatic reasons relating to Britain, are reluctant to say. We should therefore be grateful to Martin Bangemann for warning us about what is involved in this treaty, which is why many of us are quite determined to vote against it at every opportunity.

Mr. Cash: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The resolution passed by the Bundestag uses the word "federal" as the basis on which it is intended that the Maastricht process should be construed. A similar position arises on the other aspects of the argument.

Dr. Godman: We are discussing the powers of the European Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the powers of that Parliament should be enhanced, diminished or left as they are? Is it not the case that the Members of the European Parliament, when given additional powers under the treaty, will not remain satisfied with those enhanced powers? They will want more and more, which makes good sense from their point of view.

Mr. Cash: I am sure that it makes good sense from their point of view. The real question is whether it makes good sense in terms of the European Community. I re-endorse my enthusiasm for the European Community as it stands.


My concern is that the entire treaty is about improving —or, as the treaty puts it, enhancing—federalism throughout the Community. The treaty seeks to turn what is basically a trading arrangement combined with political co-operation, which I can accept, into an arrangement that is based on a massive increase in the transfer of governmental power. I do not believe that it is in the interests of the European Community to pretend that we can increase the powers of the European Parliament in the ways that are intended. That is practising a deception on the people of Europe.
We should be creating an enhanced power for the national Parliaments and improving the quality of scrutiny of European legislation in a way that truly reflects the relationship between the voters and the Members of Parliament. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who, like me, was a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, knows that perfectly well. The Minister is accountable to the voters and to Members of Parliament as a whole, and thence to the Council of Ministers. To produce an increase in the powers of the European Parliament, which will not work, is practising a deception on the people of Europe. Indeed, such an increase will make even greater the problems that we shall face as Europe falls into greater turmoil, when economic and monetary union and all the other aspirations are seen to have collapsed.
The treaty is perpetrating a fraud on the people of Europe. There is a pretence that the increased powers will fill the democratic deficit; they will not.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a pantomime, which seeks to give the illusion that there is a democratic element in the treaty. The very word "Parliament" creates that illusion. The European Parliament has no legislative or other powers of any substance. The deceit of the institutional arrangement is to pretend that there is a democratic input into the European Community. Maastricht does not fulfil that function.

Mr. Cash: There is a role for Members of the European Parliament—I do not deny that—but that role has already been defined, in terms that keep it under some control. The problem is that, under the new arrangements in the treaty, the position will become significantly worse. The centralisation of the process of economic and monetary union is taking away from the voters the power to determine their monetary affairs. The decision-making on the raising of revenue and the dispensing of public expenditure, which will cascade all the way down from the decisions taken by the unelected, unaccountable bank, is directly contrary to the interests of the voters, who will not have the compensation of knowing that they will be properly represented in the European Parliament.
The voters in this country will be properly represented in this Parliament only if we ensure that the centralising arrangements, and economic and monetary union, do not come about. Once we can see that economic and monetary union is to take place, we shall put a lance through the heart of the democracy of this country and deprive the voters of the opportunity to exercise a meaningful choice when they freely elect the people who decide these matters in the House, as Ministers, on behalf of the electorate.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because, for the first time in these debates, I almost agree with him. If the solution in terms of the centralising

tendencies is to provide more democratic control over the institution, which is what the hon. Gentleman is saying, is it not right to enhance the powers of the European Parliament, working in conjunction with national parliamentarians? The solution is not to criticise the very modest changes proposed in the Maastricht treaty which would enhance the ability of the European Parliament to control the activities of the European Commission, but to work more closely with the democratic elements in the Community.

Mr. Cash: I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure six years ago, when I said that I thought that there was a case for more contact between Members of the European Parliament and Members of this Parliament. That point was entirely without prejudice to what additional powers the European Parliament might get. Contact, yes; increased powers, no. The changes wrought by the treaty will create a completely new dimension.
The creation of the unelected and unaccountable bank poses a serious problem for the effectiveness of the individual voters of this country and for their freedom to exercise their choice. The institutional problems are also tied up with the question of subsidiarity.

Sir Richard Body: Does my hon. Friend agree that the essence of democracy is accountability? Each Member of the European Parliament is to represent 500,000 people. If we eventually have a far wider Europe of some 35 countries, as some of us wish, each Member will have to represent 1 million electors. Can we believe that those who seek to represent 500,000 people can do so in full justification? Will they make themselves accountable?
I find it difficult to represent 70,000 people and to be accountable to that number. To be accountable to 500,000 people is a sheer impossibility. There is the added danger that, in seeking to represent that 500,000, one would tend to meet only those who had most influence and power in the constituency, and such people would be manifestly unrepresentative of the whole.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions are becoming longer, and are becoming not mini-speeches but minor speeches. All hon. Members should take note of the fact that interventions are meant to be brief.

Mr. Cash: I very much agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body). When people come to see us at our surgeries, there is direct contact which is immensely important to our constituents. With the best will in the world, it is impossible for Members of the European Parliament to perform a similar function.
There is a further problem about scale, as my hon. Friend rightly said. The remoteness of people from Parliament will be a massive problem. It is utterly irresponsible of those who advocate the new arrangements to duck the question, not to take part in these debates and to attempt to obfuscate and to camouflage what is really going on. When the central banking arrangement for the whole of Europe comes into effect, it will affect the voters,, and there will have been no compensation, for good reasons, in terms of an increase in the powers of the European Parliament.
These powers, important though they are, would not go anything like far enough for those who advocate a federal


system. Therefore, the democratic deficit would be increased, but the amount of power that would be centralised and the lack of decision making by the voter in general elections would be enhanced.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not the size argument really nonsense? As things stand, it is not possible in this country for one hon. Member to deal with a constituency of 70,000 people and the problems they have; it operates only if there is some devolved system and some other involvement. Similarly, on a wider level, it is possible to have a much larger constituency, because, again, there should be devolved organisation for representing them.

Mr. Cash: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says on that point. To go down the path of devolution would be straying outside the ambit of this debate.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Cash: No, I think that I have given way enough for the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Well, under enormous pressure, I will give way.

Mr. Anderson: That argument is relevant, in this sense. If the hon. Gentleman claims some consistency in seeking proper accountability at the European and the Westminster level, he must also seek appropriate accountability of the agglomerations of power at Edinburgh and Cardiff. If he says no to that because of his unionist credentials, that casts some doubt over the general argument that he is making.

Mr. Cash: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am talking here, very simply, about the direct relationship, the contact, between the voter, the member of the public, who has the right in a general election to make a choice, and his elected representatives in this Parliament. My argument is that our system, with its imperfections, is as good as anybody could devise over a period.
The reality, within the general framework of the European Community, is that in our Parliament, by comparison with the French, we debate and discuss these matters. I do not want to go into too much detail, but there are hon. Members who would not want us to debate these matters at all. But this has enormous impact on the people we represent and it would be gravely irresponsible of us —as I think it is of those hon. Members, if that is really the view that they take—to say that those people do not wish to discuss matters which go to the heart of the basis on which they choose their Members of Parliament.
We owe it to them to look at these matters and try to unravel all this verbiage, to see exactly what impact it will have upon them, and then to vote accordingly in the Division Lobbies if we disagree with the arrangements that this treaty and this Bill propose.

Mr. Knapman: I urge my hon. Friend not to move on too fast, but to come back to the word "federal" for a moment. I seem to remember that the dropping of the dreaded F-word was a considerable negotiating triumph, and I suspect that that is so. We now hear from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) that federalism is a decentralising concept. If

there are those two opposing ideas, can my hon. Friend put his mind to why the Liberals should be voting in the same Lobby as some of our colleagues?

Mr. Cash: There are many mysteries attached to the basis upon which the Liberal Democrats will go into various Lobbies. We will discover, perhaps today or on Monday, exactly what they decide to do about a very sensitive amendment which is about to be debated. I sincerely hope that they will do what they honestly believe to be the right thing for their constituents, which is what these provisions are ultimately all about.

Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my hon. Friend has noted, as I have, that the coalition between the Government Front Bench Members and the Liberal party on a federal Europe has now gone so far that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is wearing a blue tie.

Mr. Cash: Even at this distance, I can see the European stars gleaming forth at me from that tie. I must say that, very fine tie though it is, it is not one that-I shall be wearing in the immediate future.

Mr. Michael Lord: Before my hon. Friend moves on from the relationship between a Member of this House and his constituents, is it not true that at the moment, in most areas of our responsibility, if we find a problem in our constituencies we can bring it to the attention of the appropriate Minister in the House and, if our case is just and urgent, we can get something done about it quickly? If we are sufficiently diligent, energetic and forceful, we can. Is there not a glaring case of one Ministry where that does not apply—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in connection with which most of the powers have been given away to the European Community?

Mr. Cash: I must say that the sense of powerlessness which is reflected quite often in the behaviour of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food amply supports the point that my hon. Friend has made. One of the great defects of this treaty is the failure to reform the common agricultural policy and all that goes with it. There was an opportunity; had we really been negotiating effectively, I believe that we would have regarded that as one of the most important things to get right, because of the point that my hon. Friend has made and because of the effects that this has upon good and honest British farmers.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Is not the fact that many of these issues, because of previous legislation, are partly decided in the European Community an extremely good reason for hon. Members who wish to assist their constituents to work very closely indeed with MEPs? That is the most effective way of putting pressure on the Executive and keeping an eye on what is going on in the Community. My hon. Friend is extremely lucky, because he is particularly powerful, having a very close relationship with the leader of the Conservative group in the European Parliament and also with the vice-president of the European People's party, Christopher Prout.

Mr. Cash: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because I have just been taking a few pot shots at the European People's party. I do not think that its aspirations to a united states of Europe fit terribly easily with the aspirations of the voters of the United Kingdom.
Furthermore, I do not believe for one minute that there is any reason for not having a reasonable, proper and mutual relationship between MEPs and hon. Members, provided that they can genuinely claim to be in the same party. Having said that, the relationship should be one of contact, not of an increase in the powers of the Members of the European Parliament along the lines set out in this treaty and this Bill, which are all movements towards, as the treaty says, a treaty on European union. I wish people would face the fact that what the treaty says is more important than some of the attempts to camouflage it.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. He knows full well that Sir Christopher Prout not only would welcome more regular contact with him, but is not a supporter of a federal Europe. It is quite wrong and disingenuous of him to put it on the record that he is when he is not.

Mr. Cash: I will not ascribe views to individuals, but some difficulty is created by the marriage to which I referred, and which the European People's party and our own Members of the European Parliament have mentioned in a press release, in which they talk about a marriage between them being consummated during our general election, when the European People's party is quite clearly in favour of, and has the specific objective of, a united states of Europe. It is in its statutes.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend really must come off it. He and I are members of the same party. Cannot Sir Christopher Prout be a member of a party in which people have rather different views from him?

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have not made any specific reference to the views of an individual. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is pressing that point.
I am talking about the relationship between the European People's party and the Conservative party. That institutional question goes to the heart of article 138a which says:
Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union.
The European People's party is manifestly a political party at European level, which is important as a factor for integration within the union because it espouses a united states of Europe. Nothing could be clearer than that.

Sir Russell Johnston: I wish, as always, to be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman in his dialogue with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). Surely there is a big difference between two members being members of the same long-established party and someone who makes a conscious decision to join another party which, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said, has federalism as a clear objective.

Mr. Cash: I am bound to agree with the hon. Gentleman, because it is a deliberate change of direction. I cannot understand it. It causes me, and, indeed, many other people, considerable concern.
In an article in The Daily Telegraph shortly after the consummation of this marriage, Lord Bethell, who is a member of the European Parliament, set out in an honest way the difficulties which were inherent in that significant shift of position.
Nevertheless, it is an important matter and it goes to the heart of article 138a, considering the importance of the Conservative party to the people in the United Kingdom and those of us who, in terms of this treaty, would regard our position as firmly based on the principles of Conservatism and of the Tory party. In standing up for our constitutional arrangements and for the voters, we do not want to see these powers shifted in the direction to which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber referred.
Voters will continue to insist on their right, not out of any theoretical, theological or even constitutional approach but simply because the basis on which we are elected represents a practical footing on which we can serve our constituents. When our constituents make decisions, the decisions are truly theirs, as reflected through Members of Parliament in this House and Ministers who form the Government. That will be taken away under stage 2 of economic and monetary union.
Stage 2 will come into effect on 1 January 1994. If the treaty is ratified, it is barely nine months until the provisions take effect. It is precisely for those reasons, and many others, that I object so strongly to the provisions of the treaty.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend believe that those on both Front Benches appreciate the full impact of the treaty's provisions? Having recently returned from Denmark, I know that the understanding of the Danish people of the impact of the Maastricht treaty is extremely different from our perception of its impact in the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend believe that those on the Front Benches realise the dramatic constitutional changes which will result from this amendment?

Mr. Cash: From the way in which the debate has been conducted, I have the gravest doubts whether that point is fully appreciated and understood. I would go further and say that the idea of our handing over those powers—the right of decision and the freedom of choice of our voters —to other arrangements would create a completely new dimension, which would break down the basis on which our democratic system operates.
It is a snare and a delusion that the transfer of powers could, in the context of the European Parliament, be conducted by such remote-controlled methods as having people from the 12 member states—it is intended to increase the number of member states possibly to 20 or 35 —sitting in chambers, all with completely different languages and not being able to debate matters as we do in the House but by reading out almost set speeches, and thus provide the democratic cohesive force for the people of Europe.
The whole system would collapse—not only would monetary union collapse, but the democratic system would not bear it. It would not be a proper democratic system. It would be a camouflage, it would be cosmetic and it would be an invitation to authoritarianism, partly because the powers would be conferred on unelected bankers, partly because the monetary union would collapse and partly because there would be no sufficient democratic system to sustain decisions. It would be an invitation to a form of fascism.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman's arguments would have much more validity and credibility if he did not belong to and support a Government who are in the process of privatising government in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) talked about accountability of this Parliament to the constituents outside and the possibility of constituents coming here with complaints, yet they entirely support the process of privatising government in the United Kingdom. For example, all hon. Members know that one cannot go directly to the Secretary of State for Social Security with problems: one must go to one of the agencies which have been set up. At least my hon. Friends are defending the powers of this Parliament from a non-hypocritical base.

Mr. Cash: I have some difficulty in understanding the connection between privatisation and the powers of the European Parliament, the European Commission and so on. In passing, I would say that privatisation appears to be popular in other parts of the European Community and I hope it succeeds.

Mr. Hoon: I shall take the hon. Gentleman back a little. Far be it from me to intervene in Staffordshire squabbles. Will not the hon. Gentleman have a little difficulty next year in the European elections because, having criticised the European People's party so forcibly, his party is in the process of agreeing to a joint manifesto with the European People's party, and because Conservative candidates will stand on that manifesto? How will the hon. Gentleman vote in support of those candidates?

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is raising a problem which is not of my making. I am merely pointing out the increasing contradictions of this continuing process, as I have done in the past two or three years in private meetings, party meetings upstairs and, indeed, on the Floor of the House. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how the matter will be resolved, because at the bottom line there is a fundamental contradiction.
At the party conference, the Prime Minister said that we would not have a federal Europe—over our dead bodies, as it were. At the same time, we have an arrangement under which Conservative Members of the European Parliament will join the European People's party. Politics is full of strange chemistries and I have no doubt that somebody will try to resolve them. I simply regard the matter as extremely unfortunate and regrettable. I sincerely hope that the process, which has gone too far already, will be reversed.

Mr. Gapes: Could the hon. Gentleman perhaps explain why the Conservative party spent so much time trying to join the European People's party and why the former Member for Bath was so determined to sign up to an organisation which, in its policy statements, committed its member parties to work for the federal Europe which the hon. Member for Stafford so detests? Could the hon. Gentleman give us his views on that matter?

Mr. Cash: I found it somewhat surprising that Mr. Volker Rühe canvassed on behalf of my erstwhile right hon. Friend in his constituency, but I hope that friendship betokened more than a complete symmetry of policy.

Mr. Cormack: I canvassed in my hon. Friend's by-election.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend says that he canvassed in my by-election, for which I shall remain eternally grateful, just as I am grateful to him for teaching me that I should refer to "Parlee-ament" rather than "Parliament".

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend correctly says that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the party conference that we would enter a federal Europe over his dead body. Is it possible that my right hon. Friend's speech writer was misinformed when he wrote the speech? I understand that the Prime Minister also said at the party conference:
Immigration? Immigration policy is specifically excluded under the Maastricht Treaty.
Title VI says that immigration policy can be a European policy
on the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission".
The treaty says under article K that the Commission should be associated with immigration policy. So my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was misled at least once or twice by the speech writer who wrote his speech for the party conference.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is obvious that my appeal a few moments ago for short interventions has fallen on deaf ears. I shall not fail to intervene from now on if interventions are too long.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North reminds me of the constitutional adage, "The King can do no wrong," so we must assume that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been sadly misled by his advisers on this matter. But that also applies to the legal basis on which we have been proceeding with the treaty. The division of powers among the Parliament, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Court of Auditors, all of which are matters within this grouping of amendments, depends on the legal and constitutional nature of the attributes which will be given to the various treaty articles, not merely as a matter of opinion but as a matter of law.
We are creating a legal framework. The European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction in the matters that we are discussing. There will be a new judocracy. Decisions will be taken by political judges. We shall undoubtedly deal with the European Court of Justice in a further group of amendments. On their own admission, the Government got their legal advice badly wrong in respect of the social chapter and the constitutional implications of amendment No. 27—whether it would wreck the treaty. As I have said repeatedly, and written on several occasions, the basis on which the treaty has been devised and sold to the British electorate is based on completely wrong legal advice.
The Maastricht treaty is a centralising measure and nothing else. It is apparent to people throughout Europe that it is a centralising treaty. They want it to be a centralising treaty. Yet we continually hear from those who wish the treaty to be ratified that it is not. They will say so until the moment comes when the final page of the treaty and the debates are closed—if that ever happens —but then we shall be told that of course the treaty had the consequences which we predicted. There will be no way of preventing those consequences.

Mr. Hoon: indicated assent.

Mr. Cash: I see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) nodding his head. He knows that what I say is true.


He has a distinctive contribution to make to our debates, because he knows and understands the current thinking in Europe probably better than anyone else in the House. I have listened to his interesting speeches with great care because he can tell us a great deal about what is really going on. He knows, as I do, that the treaty is a centralising measure to create a European union.
Many people do not want us to say a word. They want us to keep quiet. They want us to say nothing to the people of Britain. Yet we shall say what we have to say, because we are telling the truth about the treaty.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend said a few moments ago that Volker Rühe had canvassed in the constituency of my former right hon. Friend who sadly lost his seat at the last election. He also said that the treaty had been sold to the British people under a particular prospectus. Does he believe that there is any connection between the sad loss of the Bath seat by the Conservative party and the fact that the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend referred canvassed for our former right hon. Friend?

Mr. Cash: Far be it for me to imagine for a moment that that might have been the case. However, there appears to be some connection. I am sure that it was based on friendship and hope, rather than any comity of political interests.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend knows, as I know., that the anti-market candidate in Bath obtained about 140 votes. That answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
Does my hon. Friend accept that his misleading claim that the treaty is a centralising measure is a fig leaf for the fact that he voted for the Single European Act, which was, in many senses, a centralising measure, and which introduced qualified majority voting? The Maastricht treaty restrains those powers. The treaty of European union underlines that the treaty of Rome is no longer simply a pillar around which European union is built: there are intergovernmental pillars too. My hon. Friend has got it all wrong.

Mr. Cash: I am always delighted to take an intervention from my hon. Friend. He and I debate these matters in the House and in public meetings both within and outside the House. Clearly, we arrive at different conclusions. However, I wish that at least on one occasion my hon. Friend would be good enough to explain how the creation of a central bank for the whole of Europe, with all the powers set out, does not centralise. When he can answer that question—

Mr. Ian Taylor: Wait for my speech.

Mr. Cash: I hope that his speech will address that question. It is impossible to prove that a central bank for the whole of Europe such as that devised under the Maastricht treaty is not a centralising bank, and therefore that the treaty is not a centralising measure. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding my hon. Friend's point, but I am perfectly prepared to listen to his argument later.

Sir Trevor Skeet: My hon. Friend's emphasis on the centralising nature of the treaty is sound. Under article 3b, once it is discovered that a matter is within the exclusive competence of the

Community, it will not be possible to consider subsidiarity. So subsidiarity as a means of destroying centralisation will operate in a minute sector.

Mr. Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a double deception in the concept, first, that the treaty is not a centralising measure, and, secondly, that we can fall back on subsidiarity. As my hon. Friend will recall, one of the prime tenets of subsidiarity and one of its so-called attractions is that it will bring decisions closer to the citizen. Nothing could possibly take powers further from the citizen—his most important power is his right to vote —than to transfer the power to make decisions on monetary matters, which is accumulated in aggregate among the voters in a general election, and hand them over to unelected, unaccountable bankers. The whole thing is not only a contradiction but a fraud. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for that and many other reasons.

Mr. Marlow: May I say with all the sincerity that I can bring to bear that we forgive my hon. Friend for voting for the Single European Act. I remember the circumstances. We were told that the Act was all to do with the single market and nothing else. Now we are told that that was when we sold the pass and gave away the power. The Government told us one thing then and tell us another thing now. Now they tell us that Maastricht is not a centralising treaty. Do we believe them?

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend gets very exercised over this point. With respect to the Single European Act, there is a fundamental difference between that treaty and this. It lies in this point.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I have caught my hon. Friend on a raw nerve.

7 pm

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) says that he caught me on a raw nerve. If the day comes that people think they have caught me on a raw nerve on this subject, it will be a day to remember. It is not going to happen. I have no problem with the Single European Act. The Maastricht treaty is primarily about government; the Single European Act is primarily about trading relations.
The qualified majority voting and trading arrangements which are within the Single European Act were necessary, in my judgment, for freeing trading relations within Europe. I have no difficulty with that, in principle, in law or in practice. Unfortunately, the Single European Act and the single market have been in need of considerable improvement. Unfortunately, the opportunity was not taken in the run-up to the Maastricht treaty to create a level playing field and get rid of the wrinkles that exist. I am glad that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is looking into this, and I hope that its report will be well worth reading.

Mr. Lord: We know how difficult it is for people outside the Committee to understand what we are talking about. I am deeply concerned about some very simple things which are being missed or confused, deliberately or accidentally. My hon. Friend is touching on one now. The common market, the single European Act, is one issue, mostly to do with trade. What we are talking about now is European union and political union. It is an entirely


different matter. Sometimes Ministers at the Dispatch Box will say that Members of this House are in favour of the Maastricht treaty or that they want to come out of Europe altogether. The truth is that the views of most people in this country lie exactly between those two extremes. They want a common market, and they want nothing to do with the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Cash: I could not agree more. There has been a significant smear campaign on the basis that some of us who want this country to be taken out of the single market. I find that extraordinary, because we all know that the arrangements, the treaty obligations, between the 12 member states lock us and the other member states into an arrangement under the Single European Act, which amended the treaty of Rome, from which the other member states cannot legally withdraw.
Therefore, without our agreement, we would continue to remain in the single market and it is a complete and utter disgrace that some people go around—I do not know who they are, but we hear about them—suggesting that those of us who do not want the Maastricht treaty to go through could in some way damage the prospects of British business by our being forced out of the single market. That is untrue and unsustainable. I see that the Minister of State is bobbing up and down, and I am more than delighted to give way, as ever.

Mr. Garel-Jones: In order to help my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), just in case any misapprehension is allowed to take root that the Single European Act was simply about the common market, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) who supported it will confirm, will he not, among the many other political objectives and achievements of the Single European Act is that it was there that European political co-operation, the beginning of what we now call the common foreign security policy, was set up. That is an achievement which our right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher claimed as her own, in this very Chamber.

Mr. Cash: Indeed. I am glad to be able to confirm that I entirely agree; while my right hon. Friend was out of the Chamber I referred to that point. The point he makes—that the Single Act provides for a degree of political co-operation—is a provision to which I did not object at the time. My concern is that this treaty takes the whole situation to a completely different dimension.
Irrespective of this illusion that we are now going to create new pillars outside the treaty of Rome—which, as 1 have said in previous debates, do not touch the substance of the matter—that we would be locked into European guidelines and joint action plans and things like that which will deny us the control over our own affairs that we at present enjoy and which I think we should keep—I am happy to give way to the Minister again.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The general point I am trying to establish, as a help to my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central, is that it is simply an illusion to pretend that the Single European Act was only about the single market. It was about a great deal more than that; I have simply cited European political co-operation as one area. My hon. Friend is right to point

out that it was inevitable, when such a huge amount of qualified majority voting was allowed under the Single European Act, that we should seek, and have successfully achieved in a number of areas such as transport and training, to claw back a simple majority and push it up to qualified majority voting. Admirable though the Single European Act was, we have discovered some defects in it, on which we have sought to improve in the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Cash: I do not think my right hon. Friend has managed to do anything of the kind. What we have experienced is concessions dressed up as negotiations. The reality is that, although the single market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk. Central (Mr. Lord) said, is at the heart of the Single European Act, there are a number of peripheral matters and some increased political co-operation which I was prepared to go along with. However, there was nothing of the kind in this treaty.
The Minister will know that title II of the Single European Act, which deals—in brackets, I may add—with the words "economic and monetary union", is based on co-operation. These powers are carefully constrained. Were they not, and if the Minister were correct in his argument, there would be no need for this treaty and for this Bill. If they did everything that the Minister is now claiming for the Single European Act, we would have no need of this treaty. Then we would really be wasting our time.

Mr. John Carlisle: Some of us in this Chamber did not vote for the Single European Act even at that time, but we were then promised that it would mean, 1 think the term was, thousands of jobs for the United Kingdom. We now hear from our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that, if we do not sign the Maastricht treaty, we shall lose thousands of jobs. Can my hon. Friend or any other Member quote any jobs which will be lost if we do not ratify the treaty? I do not know of any.

Mr. Cash: The one thing that would worry me, and does worry me, about signing this treaty is that the political union that is being created is a powerful motive force towards protectionism. If anybody, including the Minister for Industry who is about to pop up, imagines that the idea that we would be able to sustain the harm that would come from the protectionism of a fortress Europe, given the present state of mind in the United States and elsewhere—if those tariff barriers were put up against us and if we were to remember, as we should, that we are running a deficit of £15 billion a year with the European Community—and if, in addition to that loss, we were to find ourselves hemmed in by that Maastricht-type community, with all the protectionism that many of us fear, we would lose all that external and global trading which would decimate the very areas which are most prosperous in our manufacturing and other industries.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) about jobs that might be lost. It is quite clear that the great success that Britain has had in attracting inward investment, particularly from Japan and the United States, is substantially attributable to companies from those countries wishing to locate in Britain because we are part of the single market and play a central role in the way that market operates and develops. I find it


strange that my hon. Friend seems willing to ignore the almost universal view of industry that signing the Maastricht treaty would be a major advantage to industry and employment.

Mr. Cash: I find the Minister's intervention most interesting. Only recently, a senior diplomat from one of the largest Commonwealth countries told me that he was concerned about protectionism and the dangers to his country's investments in the United Kingdom, and vice versa, of our going down that route. However, perhaps I should return to the institutions and get away from the implications of the powers of the single market.

Mr. Marlow: Was it not grossly insulting to our European partners for the Minister to make those remarks? We are and wish to remain part of the single market, and our European partners have treaty obligations with regard to the single market. If we do not sign the Maastricht treaty, how can the single market be taken from us? If I can move on to another point that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is testing my patience now. I hope that it is not necessary for me to intervene again. I ask Mr. Cash to continue his speech.

Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cash: Not this time. I think that you, Mr. Lofthouse, would appreciate it if, for a short time, we had fewer interventions.
I wish to examine the nature of the Commission. The idea that the European Commission is simply a bureaucratic body stuffed with civil servants is a gross misrepresentation. It is grossly over-represented by bureaucratic officials, but the Commissioners are all politicians, not merely civil servants.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I apologise for intervening so frequently in his speech, but the Committee will be interested to pursue this point. He continues to believe that the Single European Act was a good treaty, we could stand by it and it would serve our interests. He owes it to the House and the country, as he is advocating non-ratification of this treaty, to tell us whether he has discussed the prospect of sitting on the Single European Act with other member states, with people he can name or with our right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit? If he is putting forward an alternative strategy for our country, he has an obligation to the Committee to tell us what it is.

Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Some of us are finding it rather tiresome to have the debate focused on the irrelevancies of the Single European Act when the subject of the debate is clearly the institutions and the effect of the Maastricht treaty upon them.

The First Deputy Chairman: I note the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I agree with him.

Mr. Cash: It is most important that we should concentrate upon the institutional powers, but the Minister has a total obsession with the Single European Act, and he continually refers back to it. However, we are patient, and we have a good sense of humour. As the

Minister is about to retire from his present post, he will soon have other things to occupy him, so we can put up with him, at any rate for the time being.
The Commission is not simply a bureaucratic body, because the Commissioners are politicians. We have already seen the difficulties encountered by Mr. Ray MacSharry and Mr. Jacques Delors and other Commissioners when they put their national interests ahead of their commitment to the European Commission.
7.15 pm
I understand that we are now to increase considerably the powers of the European Commission. The Minister and others claim that we are cutting back on those powers, but that is not my impression. The Commission's right of initiative is in no way altered under the treaty. The idea that the Commission will somehow exercise less power under the new arrangements than under the Single European Act is a complete illusion.

Dr. Godman: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman urged us to be patient. As one of his more patient listeners here tonight, may I ask when he will come to the heart of the matter, which is the distribution of political power among the institutions and parliaments of the European Community? Any enhancement of the power of the European Parliament must to some extent lead to a diminution in the power exercised by other institutions, and perhaps national parliaments.

Mr. Cash: I have already dealt with that point, but I am happy to remind the hon. Gentleman of it. He must have been out of the Chamber at the time.

Dr. Godman: I have not left the Chamber.

Mr. Cash: In that case, he has not been listening carefully.
The powers of the national parliament should not simply have been relegated to a protocol, an annex or an agreement at the back of the treaty. They should have been at its centre if the treaty were to have any self-respect whatsoever. The powers of national parliaments in relation to the European Community needed to be increased, not reduced. The encouragement that our Government were supposed to give other member states to increase the scrutiny and quality of European legislation by means of proper investigation by elected representatives of the people should have been a prime objective in filling the democratic deficit contained in the treaty.
The treaty is authoritarian, undemocratic and socialist in most of its characteristics. There is something fundamentally wrong with the basis on which the treaty was negotiated and the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is entirely valid. The object of the treaty is not to increase democracy in Europe. Far from it: it is to create an impression that democracy will be increased. But there is not real determination to increase the powers of national parliaments within the European Community.
If there had been a real commitment to it, all member states would have been required to scrutinise the legislation properly in the way in which we do in Britain, even if we do so somewhat imperfectly. In France, it is done by decree, and in many member states there is no serious attempt to investigate it. That system is a travesty for Europe, let alone for the United Kingdom.
I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. For many years we have both been members of the Select Committee on European Legislation and know that other member states are somewhat less effective in their scrutiny of such legislation, even allowing for the fact that we could doubtless improve our efforts.

Dr. Derek Enright: In what way is Danish scrutiny less effective than ours? I should have thought that it was infinitely more effective.

Mr. Cash: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who is also a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, has mentioned the Danish Parliament, and I agree that the Folketing is a first-class Parliament. The Westminster and Danish Parliaments are at the end of the queue for ratification because we are both determined to scrutinise the legislation properly, even though hon. Members on both sides of the House wish that we would not do so. They are trying to deny the people of this country the opportunity of a debate, because they are not participating in it.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman was not in the House in 1972 when the original European Communities Bill was enacted. Those who were will recollect that many of us tried to amend that Bill to provide the sort of safeguards that have not been provided. The amendment was defeated by the then Conservative Government.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman merely reaffirms the disgraceful way in which the Danish people have been treated. Their constitution allowed a referendum, which clearly should have dispatched the matter, but certain people were not prepared to accept the result, so they will have to have another. Dubious and questionable opt-outs are being scrutinised by lawyers throughout Europe, not least in Denmark.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is a bit thick for the hon. Gentleman to say that it was disgraceful that the referendum result was not accepted, as his stand is a rejection of the referendum result in this country.

Mr. Cash: I am having great difficulty in understanding what the hon. Gentleman is saying—perhaps I had better pass on to another subject. He seems to think that we have had a referendum on the treaty. I would advocate such a referendum. Perhaps he was giving me an inkling of what he would really like. If we had a referendum on mere trading arrangements in 1975, I am sure that he would agree that we should have one on the Maastricht arrangements. I am indebted to him for his remarks.

Mr. Rowe: The oft-repeated assertion that the referendum was held on trading arrangements simply does not stand examination. One only has to consider the publicity posted through letterboxes during the referendum, the White Paper and all the debates to realise that that suggestion does not stand examination.

Mr. Cash: The 1970 White Paper is the strangest joke to have been perpetrated on the people of this country. It is extraordinary to suggest that that White Paper was not riddled with deception. At the time, we were assured that

there would be no erosion of national sovereignty, no federation and no loss of a veto. Even the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) must understand, from studying the provisions in the White Paper, that what we face now is diametrically opposed to what was contained in it. If I were him, I would not call on the White Paper to aid my arguments.

Mr. Lord: Is not that the issue that is causing all the confusion? My hon. Friend was making a point about the referendum, but that was held on the European Economic Community—the common market. The people of this country voted for a common market, and that is what they understand. They did not vote for anything else, which is Why—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It might be a good idea for the Committee to return to the subject of institutions.

Mr. Cash: Although my hon. Friend's argument is important and reasonable, because of the difference between the arrangements that we entered into between 1970 and 1975 and those in the treaty, the key point about this part of the Bill is that European institutions would be granted increased powers which would cover all aspects of government, whereas in the 1975 referendum we voted primarily on trading arrangements.
Another aspect of the question of institutional powers is the degree of independence of the Commission. Throughout Europe, institutional arrangements are moving towards more power for unelected and unaccountable officials, who will determine questions that should be determined by the people of the respective countries. That is one reason why there is so much anxiety about the Maastricht treaty and the way in which those powers have been growing. Unelected and unaccountable bankers, Commission officials and members of the Court of Justice are included in the provisions. Some Members wish to ignore that but the treaty significantly increases the powers of the Court of Justice, the Commission and the other bureaucratic institutions.
There is no question of the powers of the European Parliament filling the democratic deficit that is being created, and there is no doubt that the powers of bankers and the Court of Justice are increasing. Some hon. Members are dealing with such issues, but there is no evidence that Ministers and many other hon. Members appreciate the extent to which they are handing over the running of this country to people who have not been elected and will not be accountable—people who do not necessarily have any interest in the way in which we are governed.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The hon. Gentleman is trying to create the illusion that there will be no constraints on the shift in power from member states to the Community. He has not mentioned article 3b and the way in which powers will be constrained. I refer him to the words:
The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred".
The text also makes it clear that the onus of proof that powers should be removed from member states is on those who would remove them—not the other way around. That represents an important restriction on the ability to shift powers, and the hon. Gentleman has not referred to it at all.

Mr. Cash: The results that the hon. Gentleman hopes for from subsidiarity will not be forthcoming. By definition, subsidiarity assumes centralisation; otherwise, there would be nothing to which it could apply. It is a cosmetic exercise: it is a con trick. It is an attempt to give the impression that there will be a greater diffusion of powers to lower levels, whereas in practice the real concession is to the centralising tendencies of the unelected Commission, Court of Justice and bankers. There will be far less opportunity for subsidiarity to take effect than the hon. Gentleman would like. From all the areas in which exclusive competence has been granted under the treaty to these institutions and bodies, subsidiarity is automatically excluded, so there is little to which it can be meaningfully attached.
People are running around trying to tear up, for the time being, several European directives, but they are not changing the powers being granted under this treaty—a treaty which will greatly increase the powers both of the institutions and of the Community itself.
I regard this group of amendments as yet another reason for my decision, already taken, that I do not want us to ratify this treaty, which is centralising, undemocratic, authoritarian and socialist in all its main characteristics.

Mr. Shore: 1 have wondered at times during this two and a half hour debate whether we have focused clearly enough on the question of the institutions. I shall try to be brief and to the point.
Against the background of a treaty of a federal character, which is what this treaty is, it is inevitable that the institutions set up under the Rome treaty and subsequent treaties and under the treaty of union should be strengthened. The powers of the union, the powers of the quasi-state, are expressed, after all, in its institutions. The institutions which most clearly reflect the federal character of the treaty are the European Parliament and the Commission.
I turn first, however, to the Council of Ministers. Both it and its powers are certainly affected by what is contained in the Maastricht treaty. Virtually the only safeguard that the nation state has against encroachment by Community powers under the Rome treaty is the unanimity rule—that is to say, the rule under which the agreement of all Ministers representing member states has to be obtained before a directive becomes law and before policy is implemented.
The trouble is that the unanimity rule is being weakened all the time—first, and unfortunately, under the Single European Act. I shall not go into a great debate about that, but under it the rule was removed from a whole range of areas, especially those affecting the creation of a single market.
The Maastricht treaty removes the unanimity rule from areas of policy to which it used to apply—and from all the areas listed under article 3, for which new competence is handed over to the European Community.

Mr. Hoon: The treaty as originally drafted provided for qualified majority voting. The unanimity rule to which my right hon. Friend refers was developed in a form known as the Luxembourg compromise by member states; it was a practice, not a rule in the way that he implies.

Mr. Shore: I respect my hon. Friend's knowledge of the treaties, but I think that he will find that, apart from the famous Gaullist Luxembourg compromise, the treaty of Rome contains far more articles requiring the unanimity rule than articles requiring qualified majority voting. We need not argue too long about that, however. The important thing is to note the new areas of Community competence.
First there are the old ones: agriculture, fisheries, transport, common commercial policy, free movement of goods, persons and services. Then there are the new areas: economic and social cohesion, environment policy, research and technology development, development of trans-European networks, health protection, contribution to education and training, policy in the sphere of development co-operation, contribution to the strengthening of consumer protection, and energy, civil protection and tourism measures. Nearly all these are new policy areas brought under the qualified majority voting procedures as developed under articles 189b and 189c of the Maastricht treaty.
It follows that the ability of a Minister on the Council of Ministers to veto developments, given the new arid wider areas of treaty competence, has been removed. Ministers can no longer veto or demand unanimity. Wherever qualified majority voting is agreed, the powers of national Parliaments to hold Ministers to account are virtually abandoned, because Ministers can always turn up and say, "I did my best but I was outvoted by a qualified majority vote; I could not stick to the position which I know my own Parliament wanted me to retain."
As we are to deal separately in another debate with economic and monetary union and with all three stages thereof, I need not do more than mention the qualified majority voting in economic and monetary union, which is also enshrined in the treaty. That union covers matters of great importance.
I want to mention the powers of the Commission and also to focus mainly on the European Parliament. The powers of the Commission are also extended to all the new competences established under the Maastricht amendments to the Rome treaty. The Commission retains its powers as sole initiator of policy and its responsibility for enforcement. In one area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned, under stage 3 of economic and monetary union the Commission is given powers of a formidable kind. They are powers to propose fines and penalties for member states when it is held that they are in breach of treaty obligations. That will lead to an interesting shift in the power relations between the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
The most important changes, however, are in the powers and procedures of the European Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton began referring to the right of petition and the establishment of the office of ombudsman. Those are trivial powers, and I do not believe the European Parliament needs the Maastricht treaty to establish such rights and offices. Indeed, petition rights are already in force, so I thought it rather odd to concentrate on the most trivial of all the increased powers given to the European Parliament.
The more important aspects of the European Parliament's powers are the procedures under articles 189b and 189c of the treaty. Under article 189b, the so-called co-decision procedure greatly elevates the powers of the European Parliament in relation to the Council of


Ministers and to the Commission. Henceforth, under article 189b—this includes those matters which are to be resolved by the procedures set out in the article—the European Parliament will have the right to reject a Council proposal, whether it is a majority, a qualified majority or a unanimous decision. The Parliament will have the right to reject the proposal outright by means of a majority vote of its Members. After all procedures have been exhausted, the European Parliament still possesses the right—on Third Reading, as it were—to vote down a Council proposal.
As the Committee will know, a conciliation committee is to be established, with equal numbers from the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, to negotiate differences between the two bodies when amendments have been proposed and not accepted. This represents a substantial shift of power in favour of the European Parliament.
Extension of powers will not stop there. It is interesting and significant to read paragraph 8 of article 189b, which states:
The scope of the procedure under this Article may be widened, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article N(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the basis of a report to be submitted to the Council by the Commission by 1996 at the latest.
There we have it. By "1996 at the latest" there will be brought forward to the Council a proposal for changing or developing further the procedure of co-decision. Undoubtedly, the Council will be in favour of enhancing the powers of the Parliament.

Mr. Hoon: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in practice the powers of the European Parliament to which he refers, because they are negative, are extremely difficult to exercise? If the European Parliament rejects a legislative proposal, that is the abandonment of, probably, many years of legislative effort. The existing powers to reject legislation have seldom been exercised.

Mr. Shore: The European Parliament has the power to stymie the Council of Ministers. I think that I agree with my hon. Friend because I believe that this will be an unsatisfactory procedure. I am not in the least surprised, therefore, that provisions are already in place to allow for further amendment and development, which I think will be along the way that I have suggested—increased power for the European Parliament.
Given the importance of the new procedure for co-decision under article 189b, and taking account of the long periods—three months and an additional six weeks—allowed for reaching agreement between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, I and others have tabled new clause 21, to which I draw the attention of the Committee. It requires that a report shall be made to the United Kingdom Parliament whenever a common position agreed by the Council of Ministers has been rejected by the European Parliament but is still within the negotiating frame. The new clause will give the House of Commons a decent opportunity to question and challenge Ministers on their policy and on the new policy that they intend to adopt in the light of a veto, or the threat of a veto, by the European Parliament.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I ask my right hon. Friend a question from the pro-European position. Given

his experience as a distinguished Secretary of State for the Environment—one of the successful ones of the past two decades—does he accept that there is an argument for having a European-based policy on pollution which can be enforced? We know from the east German experience that pollution knows no frontiers.

Mr. Shore: The strongest case is the environmental one, but I put it to my hon. Friend that there is an entirely unthought-through division, as it were, of responsibilities for environmental matters now in the hands of the Community which should reside in the United Kingdom. We must decide whether we are to have more roads running through the United Kingdom. Similarly, we must determine our policy towards flora and fauna and the protection of them. That is our responsibility, and we should exercise it. Unfortunately, we sometimes fail to do so. We should not hand over such powers to a European body.
On the other hand, there must be some shared responsibilities—for example, the regulation of shipping in the channel. I suspect, however, that most of the environmental matters that my hon. Friend and I are concerned about are not for determination by the Community. That is because they are international matters. We must reach out and make major decisions and agreements on the ozone layer and other issues that concern us as citizens of the United Kingdom, of western Europe and of the world. We have a responsibility, and that should influence us. The idea that all these matters should be crammed into or transferred to a European body is nonsensical.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, who is touching on something that is of importance to the Committee and, indeed, to the House of Commons. He is talking about how the House of Commons will scrutinise and undertake its level of responsibility in all matters European. The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is rare for an element of procedure to be included in an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman's argument surprises me because he knows that appropriate Standing Committees have been established, which are doing their work. The House of Commons may wish to improve on those Committees as it gains experience. I would be surprised to see a piece of legislation—an Act of Parliament which is essentially a European Act of Parliament to do with Europe—dictating the procedures of the House of Commons. That which the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting may be sensible—indeed, it is the proper route for the House of Commons to take—but it does not need to be told to follow it in an Act of Parliament. I would contend that such a measure would slightly inhibit the House of Commons.

Mr. Shore: The Minister is advancing an argument similar to the one that he adduced earlier when he said that he did not understand why any Act or any intervention should be introduced or made to take place which bore on our procedures, even if it meant the simple requirements of an annual report and a debate. I do not agree. The accountability of Ministers when operating in a European context should be made plain at an early stage. I agree that


much can be done by implementing the procedures of the House of Commons, and those procedures should be clear in our minds at that early stage.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: No, I will not. It is a relatively small point. It is not the substance or essence of the matter, which rests with the powers of the European institutions.

Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: No, I shall be rigorous.
I have quoted from articles 189b and c, which are important, but I want to look further ahead. Anyone who has followed the debates and resolutions of the European Parliament can have no doubt about its ambitions for the structure of the European union which it so tirelessly advocates.
In a resolution passed on 7 April 1992—after the Maastricht treaty had been signed in Maastricht—the European Parliament gave its verdict on the treaty in one of the enormously lengthy resolutions that it passes and clearly foreshadowed its future course of action. The task, as it put it, was to
transform the network of relations between the peoples and member countries into a European Union on a Federal basis, based on a draft constitution drawn up by the European Parliament in co-operation with the National Parliaments.
The resolution was approved by a clear majority of the European Parliament, to which the Institutional Affairs Committee, as it is called, reported.

Mr. Rogers: My right hon. Friend draws attention to the recent resolution on the intentions of the European Parliament. However, since 1979 when the directly-elected Parliament came into existence, there have been similar resolutions on a number of occasions, the most famous of which resulted in the adoption of the Spinelli report in the early 1980s, which set out a blueprint for European federalism and is the basis of the Single European Act and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. There is no doubt at all about the intentions. Whether one agrees with them is another matter.

Mr. Shore: It is important that we do know what the intentions are. Federalism is not the recessive part of the European movement, but the dominant part. Federalism is openly espoused on the continent of Europe in virtually every country and it has the backing and blessing of most governmental leaders of the member countries of the EC.
The resolution continued—I quote again because it is important—as follows:
to begin already preparations for a new revision of the Treaties which would aim to eliminate the shortcomings of the Treaty of Maastricht.
No time is to be wasted. Maastricht has not yet been ratified. Finally, it instructs its Institutions Committee
to complete its preparation of a draft constitution for the European Union.
That was in April 1992 and the European Parliament has moved on since then. The main work has been done by its so-called Institutions Committee and its report on "Structure and Strategy" for European union was agreed by the European Parliament as recently as 20 January this year. Once again, I think that the House should be given some information on the content of that document.

Mr. Gapes: My right hon. Friend will know, because we were at the same meeting a few weeks ago with members of the institutions committee of the European Parliament, that that was the aspiration. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, that had clearly been the aspiration for many years. Nevertheless, it is clear that a change in the treaty will require an inter-governmental conference and a process in 1996 or 1997.

Mr. Shore: Yes, we know that. I am simply making the intention plain to the House—the fact that it has the support of the majority of the European Parliament, the fact that the same federal thrust is backed by the Heads of Government of most of the countries of the EC, and that it is perfectly plain to everyone except the Government and their supporters that that is the real intention. All the people who are serious about federalism in Europe and want it do not deny that for a moment. That is true of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). He is a federalist, recognises federalism when he sees it and does not try to hide the consequences of what we are doing. I much respect his position, but I have no respect at all for those who pretend and dare not face the British people and the House with the real purposes that they have in mind.

Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: No.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would be rigorous and not give way. He has now given way to two colleagues but will not give way to a Conservative Member who has a legitimate question.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for me. It is a matter for the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) whether he gives way.

Mr. Shore: I want to develop some of the main points contained in the document on "Structure and Strategy" for European union. It is of interest to the House to know the following. With regard to the Council of Ministers, the document says:
its development into a second legislative chamber in the sense of a genuine chamber of states and alongside the European Parliament must be accelerated, with it becoming a standing body of the Union, its meetings on legislative matters held in public and taking majority decisions and co-decisions and on an equal footing with the European Parliament.
Those words are particularly important. So the Council becomes a second legislative chamber.
With regard to the Commission, the document says:
 "it must hold Executive power in the European Union and as such must manage the Union's affairs on the basis of the European Union's Laws"—
and so on. There is no question about the Commission. Its powers are there. It is to be the executive and the authority.
With regard to the European Parliament itself, the document says:
it must collaborate with the Council on the basis of equal rights and powers in all spheres in which the European Union has legislative competence and with respect to all decisions concerning revenue and expenditure.
Further, and most significantly, it must have
considerably enhanced control over Foreign and Security policy …it should be given the right of assent with respect to all fundamental common foreign and security policy


decisions, in conclusion of international treaties and all decisions adopted unanimously by the Council in the framework of the European union.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) reminded me that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recently took evidence from five members of the European Parliament representing the institutions committee of the European Parliament. It became clear from our exchanges that they were envisaging a federal constitution for the European union, modelled closely on the federal German state with the nation state occupying the role of the German Lander, with the European Parliament fulfilling the role of the Bundestag and representatives of the nation state serving in an upper chamber similar to the Bundesrat. That is the very shape and outline not merely of a constitution but of a familiar federal structure. That is quite interesting. As I say, that was the MEPs' strongly supported view.
We had some exchanges earlier—I shall not go far into the subject—on subsidiarity and people misunderstanding what is meant by federalism. There is no misunderstanding of what is meant here. It is similar to the German or American systems which we know all about. There is a national assembly, in the case of the Americans, and there is the Bundestag in the case of Germany. Those are the sovereign parliamentary bodies. In both cases, in the Senate and the Bundesrat, there are representatives of the 51 or so states and the different Lander. It is a familiar picture.

Mr. Dykes: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that comparison falls short of the essential components? He has mentioned the Bundestag, the Bundesrat and the Lander, but there is no Bundesregierung—no central government entity. The sovereign member states represented in the right hon. Gentleman's equivalent of the Bundesrat or the upper house, a legislative and policy-forming body, are the sovereign member Governments working freely and voluntarily together in agreed treaty structures, but they remain essentially sovereign member Governments.

Mr. Shore: The only thing missing from the picture is the government. That is the thing that we have not located. We have the two houses. We have the federal distribution of power, and there is no misunderstanding about what federalism is—the transfer of major strategic powers to the new level of government and central institutions such as banks. The missing link is the government. It is clear that the European Parliament and its members who are considering the matter are still uncertain whether the Commission will remain the executive of the new state and whether the President of the Commission is to be drawn, like the German Federal Chancellor, from the European Parliament—that is certainly one road which some members of the institutions committee strongly advocate —or whether he should be elected directly like an American president. The missing component in the federal structure is the government itself and the authority that the presidency derives either from direct election or from the merging, being one of the members of the majority party in the European Parliament.
That is how the majority of MEPs see the future. They have at least one coercive weapon, the use of which is actively being discussed now: they have the right of

approval or veto on new member states seeking to join the EC. The European Parliament is saying that enlargement, which it knows certain countries, including the United Kingdom, are keen on, even of the EFTA applicant countries, will not be allowed unless the federal constitution of the union that it is drawing up, or something close to it, is adopted.

Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: No, not for the moment.
All that is made clear in the report of the Institutional Affairs Committee, to which I previously referred, in which it called for
an inter-governmental conference to be convened before 1996 and before any decisions are taken on enlargement and to be given a brief to start this process with the involvement of the European Parliament, on the basis of the draft Constitution of the Union in such a way as to ensure that the Union can absorb other European States while strengthening its cohesion, its ability to take decisions and its democratic legitimacy.

8 pm

Mr. Garel-Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his pursuit of ghosts and phantoms he is reading the equivalent of an early-day motion?

Mr. Shore: I am not pursuing ghosts or phantoms. I have a little more respect for the European Parliament than the right hon. Gentleman. I occasionally listen to what it says and read the resolutions that it passes. I reject many out of hand, but this report was prepared by the Institutional Affairs Committee and approved recently by a majority in the European Parliament. In addition, we know that the treaty allows for a new intergovernmental conference by 1996. Under article 189b it has already taken on board the fact that the arrangements agreed at that conference will not be sufficient and will have to be developed further. The Minister cannot say that these are ghosts. That will not do. It is time that he spent a little more time thinking about what is going on in Europe instead of telling us a lot of rubbish about how he saved the day for Britain with his clauses on subsidiarity and his two pillars to the treaty.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Shore: I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman again.

Mr. Marlow: Does not the European Parliament have one overriding objective—to acquire more power? Whatever powers it has it will use to acquire more power, and if we give it more power under the treaty it will be in a stronger position to gain even more power.

Mr. Shore: It works slightly differently. We are persuaded to agree to an increase in the competence of the Community by which we lose control over our policies, especially those decided by qualified majority voting. We then say that our Ministers are no longer responsible to our Parliament, at which point the European Parliament says: "There is a democratic deficit, which we should be looking after." That is part of the process of transferring power and the ambitions of the European Parliament. I do not blame it for having such ambitions, which are understandable. Indeed, it would be soul-destroying to be


a member of the European Parliament unless one wished to see the emergence of a federal state in western Europe controlled largely by the European Parliament.

Mr. Hoon: I am a little concerned that, in describing the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, my right hon. Friend is unintentionally misleading hon. Members. For many years, the Institutional Affairs Committee has proposed a series of blueprints—the Spinelli report, which has been mentioned already, was an example—but what resulted in practice was far short of the blueprint that my right hon. Friend describes. Perhaps, to some extent, he needs to put in context what has happened.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but he must see the Maastricht process in the context of the profound historical developments which have made the thrust to federalism the dominant factor in the Community. The two Germanys have joined together, and the united Germany wishes to enmesh itself in the rest of western Europe. The French, out of fear of a united Germany, are all too anxious to place cords and restraints on Germany, and therefore are prepared to abandon their "Europe des patries" position and advocate federalism in a way which seemed inconceivable three years ago. Against that background, we must judge the movements and initiatives of the European Parliament.
The European Parliament plans to prevent enlargement of the Community by refusing to sanction a further treaty which admits new members. The Institutional Affairs Committee specifically says that it
disagrees with the view expressed in the conclusions of the Lisbon European Councils of 27 June 1992 that enlargement of the Union to include those EFTA states wishing to accede should be completed without further institutional reforms.
The European Parliament has rejected that. The Lisbon conference recommendation or assertion that it would proceed with enlargement before institutional reform is now explicitly rejected by the Institutional Affairs Committee.

Mr. Barnes: If Maastricht extends qualified majority voting, and thereby the authority of the Council of Ministers, is the federalist dream of some MEPs really on the cards? This is very important to someone such as me who is opposed to Maastricht but who supports a federal Europe. I might be backing the wrong side. Perhaps I should support Maastricht to realise that federalist dream.

Mr. Shore: I do not know how best to advise my hon. Friend. I think that he has more reason to be pleased with the Maastricht treaty than I have. The thrust towards a federal union certainly is in the Maastricht treaty.
I have asked myself the question, as others must: why not have a federal western Europe? If matters currently in the control of our Parliament are being transferred to European institutions, why not give additional power to the European Parliament? I am aware that it has many institutional problems, but does it have the same capacity to develop, change and exercise control and democratic accountability as hon. Members? I rather think not, but —this is the important point—hon. Members are prepared to abide by majority decisions because we all represent the same political community. The community of the United Kingdom gives legitimacy and authority to the laws that are made and passed in Parliament. We accept that that is

part of the implicit contract. We are British citizens, and we accept the legitimacy of the laws that are democratically made under due process in our Parliament.
The lie at the heart of the European community is that it is a political community of the same kind when it is riot: we are close, we are allies, we are friends, but we are not part of the same citizenship and involvement that we have and believe in. Because that is the lie at the heart of the Community, Britain should never give up to a majority in the European Parliament the powers that we now exercise in our own Parliament.

Mr. Bowen Wells: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has made some important points. He has argued that there is a major tendency towards a federal Europe. That tendency is undoubtedly present in Europe. There should be no doubt or difference between us about that thrust, especially in the European Parliament.
However, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that the Maastricht treaty undoubtedly cuts back some of the excessive majority powers given under the Single European Act. That fact is illustrated in many of the clusters of amendments that we have considered and in the clauses themselves.
The treaty establishes two separate arms of the union —that on foreign affairs and defence policy and that on home affairs, justice and immigration matters. Those arms are not subject to the Commission. They are separate and they are the instruments of national parliaments and the Councils of Ministers. What is so remarkable about the Maastricht treaty is that, in spite of the federal tendencies, whose existence cannot be doubted, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues fought back. The Government have begun to push the European Community in the opposite direction, a direction of which I think the right hon. Gentleman would approve. They have enabled parliaments to reassert and reinforce their power over the Community and the Council of Ministers and, indeed, to join together in understanding the European union.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend made a fairly bold statement. He said that the Maastricht treaty cut back on the existing powers of European institutions. Perhaps he could give some examples. He then said that the great success of the pillars was that the Commission was not involved in foreign and defence policies or in home affairs policies. However, if he reads the treaty again, he will see that the Commission has the rights of proposal in all areas of policy and that it should be fully associated with all areas of policy. It is stated that the European Parliament shall be fully associated with the pillars, not only with the existing treaty. I get down on my knees and beg my hon. Friend to read the treaty again, because I am sure that he has not fully understood its implications.

Mr. Wells: I shall not be tempted down that path, because it would distract me from the speech that I wish to make. However, I shall respond to my hon. Friend's comments about the pillars. The pillars are established separately from the treaty of Rome. They are separate from agricultural matters and other sectors in the treaty. The Commission does not have the sole right to institute legislation or make proposals. I acknowledge that there is a separate secretariat to it in the Council of Ministers, so


the Commission does not provide the civil service for those pillars, but my hon. Friend must accept that the pillars are established separately.
The point at which I am driving is that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney says, the establishment of the pillars shows a move away from the federal Europe that he so fears.

Mr. Dykes: I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend when he was rightly admonishing the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for making such a negative and old-fashioned speech. However, my hon. Friend said that the Maastricht treaty would rein in the majority voting syndrome in the Single European Act. Is that correct? The majority voting proposals in the Single European Act applied only to the first segment of the legislative component, the single market. In that context, during the negotiations between Governments, the British Government were arguing enthusiastically for the acceptance of majority voting. Indeed, they were persuading other Governments to accept it. In that sense, Maastricht builds on the majority voting in other aspects, rather than reducing it from that one component in the Single European Act.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Before my hon. Friend rises—

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. May I ask for your ruling? Do I not have to answer one intervention at a time?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is right to say that majority voting was introduced to get the single market established, and it succeeded. He and I are both members of the Select Committee on European Legislation, so we know that majority voting has been extended by various means to cover matters that we had not anticipated. It is apparent from the treaty of Maastricht that the Prime Minister and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), have reined it in and redefined it in several places. I have not rehearsed the exact instances and I shall not consider them in detail now, but the Minister of State has outlined them for the Committee many times during our debates on several clusters of amendments.
I want to deal with political parties.

Sir Trevor Skeet: With reference to foreign policy, article J.5(3) states:
The Commission shall be fully associated in these tasks.
With reference to justice and human affairs, article K.4(2) states:
The Commission shall be fully associated with the work of the areas referred to in this Title.
It seems that the Commission has not been squeezed out because it has exhaustive powers.

Mr. Wells: The Commission is in a very different position vis-a-vis the two pillars of foreign affairs and security and home affairs and justice. The pillars, as we have called them, are closely associated, but they do not have the sole power of initiation.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend has just said that the Commission is fully associated with the European political co-operation established in the Single European Act. It is useful to member states, but, as has been said, the Commission does not enjoy the sole right of initiative in intergovernmental activities, which it does enjoy in areas of its own exclusive competence.

Mr. Wells: My main point relates to the inter-development of Community institutions through political parties—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Wells: I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Marlow: On reflection, does my hon. Friend not agree that in the areas where the Commission or the institutions have competence, they still have as much competence as they had before? In some areas of existing policy there is more majority voting, so the European institutions have greater competence than before, and in the so-called pillars—areas in which the European institutions had no competence in the past—those institutions now have some degree of competence. Therefore, Community institutions have increased their competence in every area.

Mr. Wells: The association with such matters—especially foreign affairs—merely reflects what the Commission has been doing for some time. The Commission was present at European Council meetings. It had something to say and its opinion was requested. Indeed, the President of the Commission was often invited to submit papers on those issues to the Council.

Mr. Garel-Jones: It is correct to say that the Commission is fully associated with European political co-operation. As the Committee will be aware, it is not infrequent in European political co-operation—it will no doubt be frequent in the common foreign and security policy—for decisions to be taken, for example, on association agreements which have a trading element, where there is Commission competence.
Many hon. Members take a great interest in the issue of interior justice. Community states already meet under something loosely called the Trevi process, which the Commission attends. One of the reasons we believe that it is a step forward in European co-operation on matters of interior justice to put it into the union treaty and make it an intergovernmental activity is that it now defines the Commission's role. If my hon. Friend considers these matters carefully he may be a little disturbed at the way in which the Trevi process has been developing and may be relieved, as I am, that we now have it within the union treaty and properly defined as an intergovernmental activity.

Mr. Wells: I shall now move on and begin what I would like to say on the issue that arises on the group of amendments and the development of Europe-wide parties. I want to draw the Committee's attention to the declarations at the back of the Maastricht treaty. They may be at the back, but, as we who have sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee and considered the Single European Act have long recognised, they are important, because the preambles and the declarations set out objectives and inform the Court of Justice how to interpret the treaty.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee, and especially that of those who are worried about the federal tendency of the Community, to the declarations dealing with the conference of parliaments. The Foreign Office's booklet, "Europe after Maastricht", points out on page 18, paragraph 128:
Thirty-three declarations are appended to the Treaty on European Union. These are not part of the Treaty but constitute a political commitment and form part of the context of the Treaty for the purposes of its interpretation including the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance as agreements between member states on the interpretation of the Treaty article concerned. These include
the declaration on the conference of parliaments. I remind the House that the declaration on the conference of parliaments
invites the European Parliament and national parliaments to meet as necessary as a Conference of the Parliaments
or assize.
The Conference will be consulted on the main features of the European Union, without prejudice to the powers of the European Parliament or the rights of national parliaments.
The President of the European Council and the President of the Commission will report to each session of the conference of parliaments on the state of the union. The immediately preceding declaration on the role of national parliaments in the European union invites the parliaments to become more involved with the activities of the European union. It says that, to that end, the exchange of information between national parliaments and the European Parliament should be stepped up—and the document continues in that vein.
As Europe evolves, we should control it, direct it and play our part in it. I suggest that we did that for the first time in the negotiation of the Maastricht treaty, in which we played a central role. Thus, we got much of what we wanted to see into the treaty, including a move away from the federal tendency of many of the other parts of Europe. We did that by negotiating right there at the centre.

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Wells: That brings up many important issues, which I shall examine when I have given way to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman puts his case well, but he cannot get away from the fundamental dilemma. The whole Maastricht treaty, the resolutions passed recently by the European Parliament—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned them—the Spinelli report and other previous resolutions all embody a tendency towards a federal Europe. There is no doubt about that. The Prime Minister negotiated in Maastricht on the basis of gatecrashing a party by going in backwards to give the impression that he was coming out—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) once described it. The Prime Minister did that because he had to satisfy certain elements in his party. Now he has the dilemma of having to argue that the proposals are non-federal, although in fact they are federal. That is the dilemma which faces the Conservative party. At least my hon. Friends' position is honest. They have always been honest about their attitude to the European Community, which is more than the Government are at the moment.

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman is making excuses. There are differences on his side of the Committee, too.

Mr. Rogers: We did not negotiate Maastricht.

Mr. Wells: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney has always been a consistent opponent of the European Community. He has consistently argued against it, and still does, not dispassionately but passionately. We must respect him for his views, and I know that he will respect the views of others both on his side of the Committee, and on ours who have the opposite opinion.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my hon. Friend not amused by the inference to be drawn from what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said—that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney represents the views of the Labour party? He does not.

Mr. Rogers: I never said that.

Mr. Garel-Jones: It might have been inferred from what the hon. Gentleman said. So far as I am aware—the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—the Labour party's view on the broad issue is that their Front-Bench spokesmen, like the Government, are against what we in Britain would call a federal Europe.

Mr. Wells: Many of us—including Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, the Government, and the vast majority of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and even, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—have in common the desire to stay in Europe. That has been said on several occasions. If that is the case, we must develop Europe in a way that we believe is democratic and accountable, and which reflects the ideas and views of our constituents, and enables them to inform the decisions taken in Europe. We must build on the idea of the European Parliament and the national parliaments meeting together.
I suggest that that should not happen in the same way as when we first met in Rome. That brings me back to the question of Europe-wide parties. At the assize in Rome the representatives of national parliaments were broken up. The European Parliament took over the running of things, putting a motion to the assize, which was passed, that made us all sit in so-called Europe-wide parties, thus completely undermining the power of national parties.

Mr. Dykes: I was also a member of that historic assize of the national parliaments and the European Parliament, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to mislead the House. Contrary to the false assertions, the assize was well organised by the Italian authorities, arid I remember that a solid majority of the members of the British delegation voted for the resolution whereby everybody sat in party groups.

Mr. Wells: Yes, that is—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. In Yorkshire do they talk about assize or assizes?

Mr. Wells: They talk about assize in Rome, and that is where we were. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East was a member of that assize and he is right to say that a majority of the British delegation voted for the resolution, led by the Labour party but opposed by several people, including myself and, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. Yes, we were a minority, but we believed that national parliaments should stick together, because that is what they were there for—to represent their


parliaments and the national ideas, thoughts, culture and traditions of their countries. In my view, it was wrong to break us up in that fashion.
It is important that we should begin to develop the way in which national parliaments work together. We should first look after the majority voting system enshrined in the Single European Act and in the Maastricht treaty, because under majority voting it is possible for decisions to be made which Britain—including, possibly, both parties representing Britain—totally opposes. Yet those decisions would be imposed upon us by a majority vote. In those circumstances it seems necessary—

Sir Russell Johnston: rose—

Mr. Wells: I shall give way in a moment, but I shall make my point first.
It is necessary for the national parliaments to meet together to find out what the others are thinking, and why they think in that way. They can then inform the Council of Ministers—their Ministers—and insist that their Ministers vote to reflect the way in which the parliaments and people are thinking. We should then have a direct link into the considerations in the Council of Ministers, under the new pillars and, I venture to suggest, in the European Council.

Sir Russell Johnston: I, too, was at the assize in Rome, and I profoundly and basically disagree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. I should point out modestly that the United Kingdom was represented not by two parties but by three. In this country there is a pluralism which is matched abroad and which the hon. Gentleman should recognise. It was easy—certainly for me—to sit with other people of similar political persuasion, even if they were of different nationalities.

Mr. Wells: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's ease of assocation with others in the European Communities who feel and think as he does. There are many more such people in Europe than there are in Britain. The hon. Gentleman felt so comfortable because he is a federalist. My argument is that we can move away from what I regard as thoroughly destructive federal practices—destructive of national parliaments, destructive of national pride and destructive of cultures. We must let the European Communities breathe. Each country must be able to develop and to take a pride in its own history. Some federalist melange is opposed by me and most of my colleagues, including members of the Government.
We must develop the idea that national parliaments should meet together, say, twice a year separately from the European Parliament and then, for a third time, with the European Parliament to exchange ideas. It is essential that we begin to develop this sort of institutional practice if we are truly to have a Europe with some control over the executive bodies—the Commission and now, crucially, the Council. The Maastricht treaty does not say how the Council is to be made accountable. In our case, the Head of Government reports to the House of Commons and is subject to questioning. But that is not universal practice in Europe. Policy decisions that have not been debated by

national parliaments or between national parliamentarians are not understood by the peoples of the various countries. Those concerned race ahead with ideas that are simply not understood by the people of Britain.
However, that does not apply only to the people of Britain. To realise that, one has only to look at the result of the referendum in France, where roughly 50 per cent. of people said that they did not want the Maastricht treaty. Why do they not want it? Because they have not been consulted about it, and they are not familiar with the issues involved. It is therefore essential that we develop Europe-wide parties so that there may be political discussions. National parliaments must meet together regularly. The lessons that the privileged members of the Select Committee on European Legislation have learnt must be extended.
In that way we should begin to make up for the undoubted democratic deficit in the Community. We should be able to bring Europe together and achieve deeper understanding. We should achieve more democracy and accountability. By achieving acceptability, we should enshrine the principle of consent to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred. The right hon. Gentleman said that the British community is to some extent homogeneous. People in this country lean towards different parties, but they remain one people. We discuss things and then accept majority decisions. That is not a universal practice. It takes place only if the consent of the people to be governed has been obtained through discussion in pubs, lounges and sitting-rooms and through debate in the press. That is what we must reproduce in Europe.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wells: No. I am just completing my remarks. We must get on and proceed to a vote so that this treaty may be ratified.
We must look forward to a situation in which we can build on the Maastricht treaty, which marks the beginning of the path away from federalism and towards a Europe of nations co-operating for their common benefit, not trying to rule or suppress each other.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I hope that you, Mr. Morris, and the Committee will bear with me, as I am losing my voice following a visit to Brussels. I might criticise a number of things about that visit, but I cannot claim that it is responsible for my loss of voice. I understand that several other hon. Members are similarly afflicted.
I am particularly keen to speak about this aspect of the treaty. To me, one of the most amazing things to emerge from the visit to Brussels and its institutions was the openness and clarity with which people there see the treaty and understand what they are entering into.
I was struck by a couple of comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who talked about decisions that we would still be able to make after signing the Maastricht treaty. He said that we would be able to choose what powers to transfer to a European level. He said that we ought to have the right to decide what degree of sovereignty to cede, and that we should cede only where necessary and desirable. But that is not how the European Commission and the European Parliament see the situation. The question of ceding will be


determined the other way round. Issues of subsidiarity will come from the centre—from Brussels and the European Parliament.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to tell us what are the opinions of European parliamentarians and of Commission officials,. and no doubt he intends to do so. I am sure that he will wish to remind the Committee that neither the European Parliament nor the Commission is a signatory to the Maastricht treaty. Signing the treaty is a matter for member states. The two institutions that the hon. Gentleman is about to quote extensively are perfectly entitled to their opinions, but decisions are taken by member states and by the Council of Ministers. I think that I see the way in which the hon. Gentleman's speech is developing, which is why I am reminding the Committee of the situation.

Mr. Simpson: The decision will be made by the House of Commons as a potential signatory to the treaty, but it may well be the last useful decision that the House is invited to make, as unmaking it will be impossible. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I want hon. Members to understand the importance of our role in making that decision.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend is being a little naive if he thinks that institutions of the Community—the Commission and the Court of Justice—will not have power to use this treaty, or that they do not have their own agenda. If my right hon. Friend is not persuaded by that fact, will the hon. Gentleman remind him that Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand both have an interpretation of the treaty totally different from that of Her Majesty's Government? They believe that it is a federal treaty, for a federal Europe.

Mr. Simpson: These are points that I hope to develop. They accord with my interpretation of what we are entering into, and of the agenda on which other people are already working, on a European scale.
The two-day, all-party delegation in Brussels met a number of people, ranging from the Director General of the Commission to the Commission's legal and economic advisers, and to senior Commissioners. Let me mention some things that were put to us candidly and openly.
The presumption in Europe is that economic sovereignty will already have been ceded to the European central bank. There is no question of national Governments' retaining powers and responsibilities other than those dictated by the European central bank.
One of the most telling points that came out of our session with the economic advisers was that they conceded that the only lever on the economy that would remain in the hands of national Governments would be the choice of using either mass unemployment or taxation as regulators of the economy. All other levers would have been taken centrally into the unaccountable and unelected European central bank. Anyone who does not understand that point occupies a different world from the one that I occupy, and is taking part in a different debate.
The question of subsidiarity also arose. It is an interesting notion, on which many hon. Members have spent a considerable time.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The amendments that we are debating

deal with the institutions—the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. The hon. Gentleman cannot run through the other matters, such as subsidiarity, that he may have discussed in Brussels. Please will he return to the subject of the institutions?

Mr. Simpson: I was trying to make a point about the European Court of Justice and about whether the question of subsidiarity was justiciable. The assumption by the advisers was that the court would be unlikely to make a judgment which was in conflict with the consensus among the rest of the European states.
There were mixed messages for the House on the Commission's ability to apply the social chapter. The first message was that the Commission said clearly that it heard the debate going on in the House, but did not believe that the Commission's ability to apply the social chapter depended on whether Britain accepted it. The Commission's officers believed that it had, in article 118, all the powers necessary to develop a unified European social policy.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I have followed up the hon. Gentleman's discussions with that Commission official, and I suspect that there may have been a misunderstanding. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misinterpret what that official said. The official was saying that the Community, through the Single European Act, already has a social dimension. The United Kingdom supports that social dimension and has a better record of implementing the directives that flow from it than any other country in the Community has.
The official may have been misunderstood in this sense. He was saying not that other actions that the other 11 may wish to take outside the social dimension could not take place, but that the United Kingdom would not be affected by them. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to misinterpret the senior official with whom he spoke.

Mr. Simpson: It is only fair to say that, if there was a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation, the senior official was pretty consistent about ensuring that we misinterpeted the point. He was pressed on the point several times, and he repeated his comments—much to the consternation of a number of Conservative Members who were part of the delegation. I simply make that point.
My next point is a cautionary one for Opposition Members who are enthusiasts for the treaty. The official's qualification was that, if the financial resources were not there, within the remit defined by the central bank, it did not matter what social policy framework there was, because money would not be produced out of thin air by Governments who had no legal right to direct the bank to release the necessary resources. I suspect that there is not much comfort for any hon. Member in that point.
The officials then took us through the role of the Commission in terms of the regulatory framework. This is precisely the point that was made earlier. The Commission clearly has its own agenda for a rolling regulatory framework. It was described in positive terms in many ways, and I could understand that. We were told that the Commission had a bureaucracy that was very different from the bureaucracy that we encounter in the House of Commons. It is: it is more open and more accessible. The whole delegation was able to get answers far more forthright than those that we get in the House.
The officials also said that they employed bright people to come up with bright ideas, and that those bright people then drafted bright regulations to implement them. We were told that those people's zeal sometimes made them act in ways about which more senior officials might not feel entirely happy.
They cited the example of a set of proposals for European regulations on zoos. The zeal was such that the proposals had come to the point of requiring the owners of zoos to specify which routes out of the zoo they thought the animals would take in the event of a break-out. The proposal was described in the Commission as being about whether the animals would shop at Sainsbury or Tesco.
The real question is not whether the Commission should stop employing bright and zealous people, but the extent to which they are held accountable to a democratic process.

Mr. Hoon: Is not the logic of my hon. Friend's argument that we should give real power to the European Parliament, and that we should make the European Commission subject to the European Parliament?

Mr. Simpson: That is one line of argument. My difficulty—I have a number of close friends in the European Parliament—is that I regard that Parliament, as it is structured, as a Mickey Mouse institution. I need to be convinced that the European Parliament could function democratically so that it could hold the Commission to account and be accountable to its domestic electorates. I raise that point as a legitimate reservation.

Mr. Dykes: I am disturbed by what the hon. Gentleman says, but not because I am worried about his phantasmagorical description of the so-called "excessive" ambitions of the Commission. That is what the Commission is there for. It is for the member Governments to vote on the legislation that the Commission proposes.
In what form is the hon. Gentleman reporting to the Committee on these matters? Does he propose just to leave his own words on the record today? Will there be a report of the meeting? Will the Commission issue its own report? Will the hon. Gentleman place a copy of the official proceedings of the meeting in the Library? If he does not, we are relying solely on his hearsay and rather hyperbolic description of a meeting, with which others might not agree.

Mr. Simpson: I invite the hon. Gentleman to check my comments against the experiences of Conservative Members who were also part of that delegation. I shall be happy to hear the hon. Gentleman's judgment about the accuracy of my comments, based on their comments. He will have to live with my interpretation of how that tour went for the time being.

Mr. Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Simpson: I will not.
The Commission came over clearly as saying that there was a crisis of confidence in the Commission. The crisis of confidence had been caused precisely because institutions such as the House of Commons were not simply rubber-stamping the treaty. The crisis of confidence was

not caused by feeling the need fundamentally to review the Commission's role and its lack of political accountability, but by the feeling that it was treading water until the treaty was signed. I again caution the Committee against failure to understand that what we face is not a crisis of confidence, but a pause in the regulatory momentum. That cautionary message should not be lost on the Committee.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not the proof of the excellent points that the hon. Gentleman makes so fairly and accurately in the treaty itself? There may be a genuine desire to give powers to the European Parliament, but all that can be given are cosmetic powers. That is abundantly clear, because the structure of the EC is such that there is no way in which real powers could be given to the European Parliament unless we started all over again and had a European Government. Is not the proof of what the hon. Gentleman says simply in the wording of the treaty, of which article 107a is a perfect example? It gives Parliament simply the power to suggest legislation to the Commission.

Mr. Simpson: Nothing that came out of my visit to the Parliament and the Commission surprised me: it is there in the treaty, writ large for those who wish to read and understand it.
We need to understand how far into the agenda of forward thinking in a centralised planning context the rest of Europe and certainly the Commission already are. I picked up one of the documents produced in the European Parliament by the research directorate. I was not charged, it was gratis; it may be the last free thing we get. The document has to do with the prospects for a foreign and security policy for the European union after Maastricht.

The Chairman: Order. I do not know about that, but it is out of order on this amendment.

Mr. Simpson: Can I cite it as a comment on the perspectives of the Parliament, then?

The Chairman: All right.

Mr. Simpson: The preface says:
The treaty of European union, however imperfect it may be, lays the cornerstone for the development of a European federal state and of a European Constitution.
Below that, it says:
credit is due to the Heads of State and Government of the Member States …for having succeeded in Maastricht in reconciling clearly divergent interests and constitutional traditions in the field of foreign and security policy and hammering out a compromise package which opens up new prospects for a common foreign and security policy.
So the presumptions of the Parliament are very clear that there is a role that will fall into its lap and into the lap either of the Commission, or of the Council of Ministers, which will carry this through.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Gentleman is seriously misleading the Committee. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is accidentally and forgiveably misleading the Committee by mistake.
Will he not agree that he has just cited an obscure document giving the opinions of some of the members of the research department of the European Parliament? It is not even a policy document, and it may never make any progress. The European Parliament is full of documents like that. Indeed, we have documents in the House which are not policy documents or governmental decisions. That


will not be the sacred text of the future. What about the plurality of ideas and different views on the development of Europe that come from all sources in the Community, including Britain?

Mr. Simpson: I am not suggesting that this is already the agenda that we shall be writing our name to; I am saying that, if this is not the direction in which we are heading, there has to be written into the treaty a whole series of democratic checks and constraints which are not there at the moment, and which have to address the fact that this is the direction in which contemporary thinking is going. I say this to inform the Committee, rather than to mislead. I do not believe that I am misleading the Committee. If I am doing so inadvertently, I am sure that I am not the first to have done so.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate why it was that, at the last meeting in the negotiations before agreement at Maastricht, the President of the European Parliament told the member states that the Parliament was so unhappy with the shape of the treaty that had emerged that he seriously doubted whether it would be prepared to support it? So when the hon. Gentleman reads out the perfectly legitimate wishes of the European Parliament, he must not imply to the Committee that the member states have met, or will meet, those wishes.

Mr. Simpson: There is a gap between what people's wishes are and what mechanisms the House would have for addressing those policy proposals and changes if that is the direction in which they go. I am simply saying that, before we sign our names to this treaty, we must ask ourselves what checks and controls we would have, so that we could say no to this sort of development once we had signed the Maastricht treaty.
I believe that the presumptions of the Commission and of the European Parliament—and perhaps of the Council of Ministers too, although I have not visited its members —are that we would be moving towards a much more centralised bureaucracy, which will determine the shape of Europe.
The other point that came out of each of the sessions during this visit was in connection with European monetary union. The Commission's assumptions about the role of the bank were all to the effect that European monetary union was a deferred inevitability. The notion of the opt-out was described as the legitimate choice of a passenger choosing to bail out of an aircraft at 10,000 feet without a parachute. Of course we would have that choice, but the question is whether at the time we would believe that only a fool would squander the existing position and take the risk of not taking the next step. That is very similar to the message that we are being given now.
I simply convey to the Committee that these were the messages that were coming back to me as part of that argument.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman asked what checks the House would have if moves take place in the direction that he is concerned about. What will happen is that there will be another intergovernmental conference and another treaty, which will be brought to the House, and the House will be told that, as with the Maastricht treaty, we have to take the whole treaty and nothing but the treaty.

Mr. Simpson: Th at is a very fair point. It raises for me a huge set of questions about what we are signing up to. Nothing dented my perception that the nature of the beast was that the institutions are unelected, unaccountable and undeterred in their forward planning by the debate taking place in the Committee and in the House. The presumption is that this is a minor distraction which has to be entertained before the real business of centralised planning can take place in a European context.
I am not wholeheartedly opposed to that. If I believed that this was planning for a socialist Europe, I would be in favour of it. But it is not a socialist Europe. In that sense, I differ from my colleagues on the other side of the Committee. I see the terms of this treaty as signing us up to a set of arrangements in which the primary function of the institutions in Europe will be to respond to the interests of European capital. The terms of reference of the European bank make the subservient role of nation states very clear.
It would be a huge millstone around the neck of an incoming Labour Government to attempt to buck the rulings of the central bank about borrowing limits, interest rates and debt ratios. If we were faced with the institutional rules and framework to which we are signing up, how would we adjust the economy to deliver a socialist programme? The question which must be addressed, by those on the Opposition Front Bench as much as by those on the Government Front Bench, relates to how they wish to run the economy. We are signing up to a millstone for a socialist Government, rather than some back entrance to a socialist utopia.
In terms of the enhanced role proposed for the European Parliament, hon. Members who doubt the extent to which powers will be given to the European Parliament are absolutely right. A facade democracy would be constructed. The democracy would have no power. It would struggle itself to be accountable, or to have any significant influence in the key decisions which would be made behind closed doors in European institutions. What would be the role of hon. Members with regard to the institutions and the framework which we are setting up?
9 pm
One of the saddest things I must say to the Committee is that we have sold the pass in terms of our responsibilities to the electorate, and in terms of the institutions of Europe. A couple of years ago, I wrote a book forewarning people about the consequences of signing up to the Single European Act and its implications for industry and race relations in Britain and Europe. One of the most frustrating things is that, when I tried to find out what was going on, in terms of international negotiations in which the United Kingdom was involved at a European or intergovernmental level, I was not able to find out anything.
The House of Commons has ceded large tranches of democratic decision-making powers to Ministers, and Ministers have trotted off to take their decisions behind closed doors in Europe. The House has betrayed its democratic responsibilities and the British people. It is no good bleating that we see European institutions looming even larger and saying, "But we never knew." It was written large in the Single European Act for everyone to see. We did not have to wait for Maastricht to know what sort of writing was on the wall.
I went to Brussels with a specific local agenda. I wanted to know from Sir Leon Brittan what action the Commission would take to halt the dumping of Chinese bicycles in Britain. The issue has been raised on the Floor of the House, and I have tried to raise it with the Department of Trade and Industry. Sir Leon Brittan told me—the answer was clear—that it has been handed to Europe. The decision will be made in Europe. Britain is powerless. The Department of Trade and Industry has, it seems, already opted out—and handed its responsibility over to Europe. All I was able to get from the Commissioner were comments similar to those made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, which was basically: "It wasn't me," and, "I wasn't there."
When I saw Sir Leon Brittan, I hoped that the Commissioner responsible for foreign relations and trade would be able to say, "This is the line that we are taking in Europe on anti-dumping policies." What did we get? We got a "maybe". It was clear that hon. Members from both sides of the House, who were pressing the Commissioner hard on this issue, had no leverage at all. The decision may or may not be made, but it will be whimsical, unaccountable and unchallengeable.
I came away saying to colleagues on both sides of the House what I now say to the Committee: how would a British Parliament defend its industry in such circumstances? How would the House defend jobs in Raleigh in my constituency or the cycle industry in Britain as a whole? If it wanted to halt the dumping of bikes in the United Kingdom but found that the decisions had been handed over to a European level, what would it do? The powers to intervene, economically, in our national self-interest will career away at a rate which we will only ever live to regret.
My hostility to the treaty is that the framework given to political and administrative institutions does not say that the remit is to re-create full employment in Europe. It says that everything will be subject to the interests of price stability. At best, we will see only jobless growth in Europe; a growth focused entirely on money interests. That is what institutions such as the European Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice and the European bank will be required to deliver.
It is sad that it has taken until now for the Committee to realise how much we have sold out the interests of British people. We will not be forgiven for surrendering ourselves to such a shabby deal from which the people of Britain and people in Europe will gain nothing.

Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made an interesting speech and the Committee listened with great care. I hope that he will not think that I address him in any spirit of condescension when I say that many speeches with a similar context have been made over many years, and many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would disagree with his conclusions.
I share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the awful and depressing era of high unemployment which all member states, including Britain, are experiencing. [Interruption.] As I am referring to the hon. Gentleman's speech, perhaps he will listen. Unemployment is a depressing reality and many policy measures must be taken to overcome it. One means or another must be used both by member states and by the institutions of the European Community, but we cannot reach that

conclusion for ever and say that unemployment is a result of our membership of the Community and the way in which its institutions work.
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the way in which the Community functions. He grossly exaggerated the powers, of the Commission. The Commission's delegated powers, for example, in international trade negotiations have given increased strength to the individual member states and to the collectivity. The examples of that are so numerous that I shall not weary the House by going through them. It is much better for the Commission to represent the whole Community. It has initiated remarkably successful anti-dumping actions against imports which enter member states, including Britain, at an undervalued price. The hon. Gentleman was worried about the single example of dumping of bicycles. That is his local interest and I deeply respect him for raising it.
It is absurd to say that the system under which the European Community works is deficient or that we have surrendered our powers to it, except by the normal process of delegated legislation. We support the majority of decisions reached by the United Nations Security Council or the other mechanisms of the United Nations. Action is taken as a result of those decisions. For example, peacekeeping forces are sent out. We do not say that we have lost powers as a result of that. We signed a treaty which gave us additional strength with our countries. As a result of that action, treaty-based decision making takes place and is reported back to Parliament. That is the process.
You might say that Parliament should have another bite of the cherry and force the Government to change their mind on the treaty. You might say that the institutions of the EC are not working as we expected. But that would be manifestly absurd. When I said "you", Mr. Morris, I was speaking in the general, broad sense. I apologise.
The European enthusiasts in this place regard the Maastricht treaty as an extremely mild document which creates a well-balanced relationship between the institutions of the EC. It is much less profound—the hon. Member for Nottingham, South was right about this—than the Single European Act with its implications for the future. That is probably so, but we did not have the perturbations and hysteria from the "antis" on the Single European Act that we have had on the Maastricht treaty. That in itself leads one to some interesting political conclusions.

Mr. Garel-Jones: It is an interesting contrast.

Mr. Dykes: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State reminds us, there is an interesting and sharp contrast between the reaction to the Single European Act and these prolonged debates.
The relationship between all the EC institutions as they are established to work in the future will be extremely satisfactory. The Commission will have the enhanced powers which come from those parts of the Maastricht treaty in which integration has been increased. Majority voting decisions of the Council of Ministers will presumably tend to accept principal Commission regulations and directives—mainly directives. Sometimes the United Kingdom will be in a minority. Sometimes it


will be in a majority. Sometimes there will be no vote. The Council of Ministers will think that something is such a good idea that it will allow it to go ahead.
The role and power of all the institutions is enhanced by the treaty. That is perhaps an unusual achievement. There will be a much greater degree of co-operation, but most Community activity will remain intergovernmental. I cannot understand why the anti-Maastricht—I must not say anti-European because I know that it produces a protest—colleagues on this side of the House and on the Opposition Benches are so worried. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a terribly old-fashioned speech. We have heard all that before.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is old fashioned.

Mr. Dykes: I do not believe that I am. The first part of my speech may have sounded old fashioned, but I am coming to the new bits. We have all repeated ourselves in these debates over the years but so much of the weight, incidence and proportionality of operating in the Maastricht treaty is so intergovernmental that, as has been said already, enthusiastic and active members of the European Parliament and some senior Commission officials have complained bitterly that they feel let down that the original intention of the solemn declaration on European union in June 1983 has been massively diluted as a result of these prolonged intergovernmental negotiations.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend has very strong views, but if he takes that view, will he please look at page 91 of the treaty as one of 17 examples I could give him? He will see the economic powers of the central bank. Far from being intergovernmental, no government, no Member of Parliament, no person is allowed to make representations. They are in charge, these civil servants appointed for eight years at a time. If my hon. Friend believes that there is some kind of intergovernmental or democratic control, will he read the treaty and accept that in running economic policy, despite the view of the Foreign Office which has a lot of nonsense in its documents, it says specifically that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the French Government, the German Government, none of them is even allowed to make representations to the central bank. How is that intergovernmental?

Mr. Dykes: We can all pick out, in an exaggerated way, the most emotional bits of the treaty and misquote the implication.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Have you read it?

Mr. Dykes: Yes, I have; unlike some Members, I have read everything in the treaty. I do not agree with my hon. Friend about that, but I do agree with what he was saying earlier—that the increase in the powers and functions of the European Parliament was very slight and that that was also the mirror image of the reality that no European Government has proposed. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said that. It is true. All hon. Members must fairly and objectively agree that not one entity in the Community, not one power source, nor any politician of any seniority or moment in

any member state has suggested the creation of a single physical intergovernmental entity located in Brussels or any other important city of the Community.
Before anyone tries to intervene and say that Herr Bangemann said that, I think I am right in saying that —I had been hoping to get the text, but it has not arrived; if I find later that I am incorrect, I will apologise, of course —Herr Bangemann did not use the British translation when he used phrases about a federal state but referred once again to "the federation". The misunderstanding there was again deliberate and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney was correct when he did not accede to that and did not join in that classic, continuous conspiracy of misunderstanding but said that the federal German model had one gap in this particular structure, which was the federal government based in Bonn and perhaps in Berlin in the future. That does not exist in this structure as proposed nor in the Community structure which has already existed for many years. If anybody here can produce the name of a senior important member of any Government or of the European Parliament, apart from an expression of opinion, who has suggested the creation of a single governmental entity structure based presumably in Brussels, then I will happily correct myself.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course we can all trade quotations backwards and forwards with each other, but since Herr Bangemann has been mentioned it might be helpful to the Committee to recall the speech made by Chancellor Kohl, who is, after all, the federal Chancellor, who said in Oxford on 11 November:
We have not laid the foundation stone with Maastricht for a European superstate which will reduce everything to the same level and blur the differences. Rather we have committed ourselves to a Europe constructed on the principle of unity and diversity".

Mr. Dykes: I agree with my right hon. Friend about that important utterance. That is the great attraction, charm and beauty—if I am not getting too carried away —of the whole process. It is a unique new creation. The treaty reinforces the intergovernmental and national aspects. I agreed with my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It is difficult trying to continue against this Caledonian barrage from Scotland, Mr. Morris. I apologise for using the term Caledonian in a totally wrong way, but I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) referred to the need to involve national parliaments more. That is an important point on which to build, in the sense not of national parliaments representing national interests, but of party groups meeting the European Parliament more often. The process remains pluralistic and diverse with a multiplicity of voices from everywhere. The idea that there is a concentration of power anywhere is manifestly and patently absurd.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman referred to Martin Bangemann, the vice-president of the European Commission, who has made perfectly clear exactly what he wants. Whatever the semantics may be about federalism, he has not been repudiated by any of his colleagues, including Chancellor Kohl. When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr.


Spearing) whether a single currency meant a single Government—and no one, not even the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) could be more enthusiastic about Maastricht than the right hon. Gentleman the Father of the House—he said that it did and he was quite happy about it. That is what he wants and presumably what the hon. Member for Harrow, East wants.

Mr. Dykes: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was expressing an opinion. I did not notice that he was a signatory to the treaty. Who signed the treaty? Sovereign member states, increasing their intrinsic sovereignty as a result. As a keen exponent of the development of the Community, I am delighted to see that the integration between those sovereign states has also been enhanced.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I am saddened by the thrust of my hon. Friend's speech. I have always felt that my hon. Friend was one of the more honest hon. Members. He believes in federalism and has always defended it, but he now seems to be backing off and joining Ministers by saying that the great thing about the treaty is that it does not embrace federalism. My hon. Friend should not be seduced by what was said by Chancellor Kohl because on 3 April 1992 at Bertelsmann, Chancellor Kohl said quite specifically:
In Maastricht we laid the foundation stone for the completion of the European union; the united states of Europe.
Which speech are we to take? I hope that my hon. Friend will stick to his guns and defend his genuinely federalist position so that we know where we stand.

Mr. Dykes: Armed with that exhortation, how could I refuse to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion? I did not say that I approved or disapproved of it because it was not a federal issue. Of course it is a federal Europe. Lest my hon. Friend gets excited about it, it is not in the sense that he expects. He thinks mistakenly that federalism means a single Government structure emerging from Brussels, but he is wrong. The united states of Europe means what it says—without capital letters, necessarily—a federation in the European Community sense of sovereign member countries. Perhaps more use will be made of majority voting. Each member state will take part in decision making and sometimes will be part of the majority and sometimes part of the minority.
Perhaps it was because the hon. Member for Nottingham, South is an inexperienced Member—I do not say that with any condescension—but it is risky, to say the least, to report what was presumably a private meeting on the basis of his interpretation of what was said by quite justifiably enthusiastic Commission officials. It is their job, and they would be attacked and condemned if they were not constantly making proposals that the treaty arrangement required of them, but it does not mean that those proposals are taken up.
The Commission complains constantly that the Council of Ministers, and member Governments, individually or collectively, are turning down ideas when they may have made the original suggestion and asked the Commission to look into something and then they turn it down, as the European Council does.
I would love to know some more details, such as the names of that fascinating delegation. I assume that it was made up of eight plus eight members. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats were not involved and it was eight plus eight because, given the small Government majority, everyone is so fanatical about pairing. Whatever the number, I think that I am right in saying that all the Conservative Members who went were extremely sceptical about the Maastricht treaty. On their first visit, I expect that they went into those meetings with European Community officials ready to pounce on the slightest sign of collective enthusiasm for developing the European Community under the Maastricht treaty.
No, I am sure that, to the contentment of everyone in this sovereign Parliament, those arrangements remain very much the decisions and objectives of member Governments, and that that will remain the case. It has been a slow process, but I am glad that at long last the member Governments are slowly and hesitantly getting together in the agreed integrated structures, which has been the intention ever since the treaty of Rome was signed and since the solemn declaration on European union in June 1983.

Mr. Simpson: I am more than happy to give the hon. Gentleman a detailed breakdown of members of the delegation and of the senior officials and Commissioners we met. I am only too happy for him and other hon. Members to check out their comments to us. To be fair to Conservative Members, I think that their scepticism grew with the honesty and clarity of the answers. Perhaps that is one of the features that has been missing from some of the information given to the Committee.

Mr. Dykes: That makes the position a little better. It is easy for us to reproduce conversations or so-called conversations when we come back here, but sometimes the human ear does not hear correctly. I would be much happier, however, if the hon. Gentleman would arrange for the Commission's report and minutes of the meeting to be deposited in the Library. Presumably someone took notes. That would be the only way to satisfy us that the record is correct and available for all to see.
In conclusion—

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Dykes: I shall not give way again as it would not be fair to other hon. Members.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is unfortunately no longer in the Chamber. If he had allowed more interventions from Members who he thought would be unhelpful, he would have found that in many cases they would have supported the spirit of his new clause 21. Happily, for various reasons, it has no chance of making progress, but I agree with some of the spirit behind the new clause. The mistake was that it should have been constructed differently. As the Minister of State said in his intervention, one could not insert such a procedural complexity into our statute or reproduce it in the treaty —it would be impossible.
Returning to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, I hope that the Scrutiny Committee will not only scrutinise existing directives, regulations, decisions, reports and communications emanating from the European Commission, but will also be able to do the same with official declarations and


decisions taken by the Council of Ministers and decisions taken by the European Commission on behalf of the other institutions. It is important to achieve that, but the Committee would have to be larger and would probably involve sub-committees, which is a nightmarish scenario.
It is important to reassure the public in all member states that their Parliaments are involved through the natural human liaison of the party groups, right across the spectrum, in the European Parliament and elsewhere. That Parliament should be armed with even more powers to ensure that the man and woman in the street are directly related to the whole process and do not regard it as a remote phenomenon. They would find that particularly offensive at a time when they are so concerned about unemployment, redundancy, economic and social problems and all the rest, and regard the treaty as a remote and strange exercise in the House of Commons and elsewhere.

Sir Russell Johnston: Institutional questions are fundamental and important, but, sad to say, for many people they are very boring. I do not mean boring in the sense of the boring speech made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who held us enthralled by the incandescence of his oratory for 87 minutes or thereabouts. Rather, I am referring to the fact that, although the frameworks within which we operate our democracy are exceedingly important, they are strangely difficult to make politically sexy.
Before deploying my argument, which will be exceedingly sexy, I should like to refer briefly to the speech by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who has unfortunately left the Chamber. He is always extremely courteous and thoughtful. I was interested by the way in which he ended his speech, which comprised the philosophy of the anti-marketeer. He said that the lie at the heart of the European Community is the idea that it is the same kind of community as the real community of the United Kingdom.
Interesting, but is it true? It is difficult to argue about it because at the core of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was not an argument but an emotion—a nationalist emotion, actually. I do not say that pejoratively: I say it descriptively. Emotions are notoriously impervious to reason, as we all know—but let me have a little try with the argument.
The hon. Gentleman's first assumption is that the real community of the United Kingdom, the community of Scots, Welsh, Irish and English, is more coherent or homogeneous than the Community of French, Germans, Dutch and so on. Is it? I contend that it is neither more nor less homogeneous in terms of attitude, history, behaviour patterns, likes and dislikes. There are of course language problems—

Sir Trevor Skeet: rose—

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly. There are certain problems, but I contend that there is more homogeneity in Europe, including us, than there is between us and the United States, despite the fact that we speak the same language. We have more in common.
The right hon. Gentleman's second assumption—

Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman must not get excited; it is bad for the heart.
The right hon. Gentleman's second assumption was that the real community of the United Kingdom produces some sort of mystical mix that is unique and intrinsically productive of better ways of looking at things—institutions, law, democracy and attitudes—than the mix across the channel. I would say that our mix is certainly more familiar to us, but that does not necessarily make it superior. In Europe we are more alike than we are different, and I am not afraid of that.
The basic problem facing the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is that he is afraid. I think that he is wrong to be afraid.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are at least 32 ethnic groups in Europe, and even more languages? Although there may be a number of nations embodied in the United States of America, they have a single language, English. Is he further aware that Europe has been splitting up recently? The former Yugoslavia has broken down into three or four different states, for instance. How then can he suggest unification in 1993?

Sir Russell Johnston: I am well aware of all those things. I read the newspapers just like everyone else. As I said a moment ago, I simply reach a different conclusion. We must agree to differ.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman care to recall that in the origins of the United States of America just three votes made the difference between Americans' language being English as opposed to German; and that most forecasters accept that the predominant language of the United States of America by the turn of the century will be Spanish?

Sir Russell Johnston: I have no doubt that that is of pleasure to the Minister of State, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench looking pleased with himself.
At the time of the various intergovernmental conferences that ran up to Maastricht, there was great hope that the new treaty would do far more than, in the opinion of me and my colleagues, it does. There was great feeling that it would sweep away the democratic deficit, but it has not. It was felt that it would give real legislative power to the European Parliament, but it does not. The changes that it will make are relatively modest.
A great opportunity was missed at Maastricht. The Germans—we often talk about them in the context of Europe—were arguing strongly in favour of giving increased power to a democratically and directly elected European Parliament, and were willing to relinquish full control over their most prized asset, the deutschmark, through bringing about economic and monetary union. It is difficult to know in these recessionary times, with nationalism once again on the rise, when such an offer will again be laid before us.
Far from regarding Germany as a threat, I look upon it as a country which is exemplary in its behaviour. I am frequently astonished by the contradictory attitude of those xenophobes who fear Germany and at the same time argue that an integrated Europe is something to oppose. If Germany is to assert itself, it will do so much more forcefully within a loose arrangement in Europe rather than in the integration that it has wanted. That is what was


wanted by the politicians of the Kohl generation, but it is something which the next generation of Germans may not want quite so much.
The Maastricht treaty takes one or two steps in the right direction in terms of increasing the power of the European Parliament, but I do not think that it is an enormous step to give what I think the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) described as negative legislative power in the form of being able to reject proposals.
The changes to the Commission are welcome. It will be sensible to extend the term of office to five years to run concurrently with the European Parliament. It is to be welcomed that the European Parliament will have an increased role in the appointment of Commissioners, and especially in the appointment of the President. That enables me to make a brief reference to the amendment tabled by the official Opposition that proposes that the appointment of Commissioners should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons. I do not agree with that. It is a proposal which misses the basic point that Commissioners, once appointed, do not take on national responsibilities. Instead, they pledge themselves to look at the Community through the eyes of a Community citizen rather than as a German, a Brit or whatever. I think that that is right.
Article 146, which allows representatives at ministerial level to be on the Council of Ministers, is welcome. It is certainly welcomed by those of us who have long argued that Ministers from the Scottish and Welsh Offices should be present, as a matter of course, when relevant issues are being discussed by the Council. I suppose that Liberal Democrats favour the "Europe des Regions" concept as a goal, and we see a small and hesitant step in the right direction.
A further change to the power of the Parliament is that the uniform electoral procedure requires Parliament's assent. That is article 138, and it brings me to amendment No. 426, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party. The article states:
The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States. The Council shall, acting unanimously after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Apart from one failed attempt in 1982, the European Parliament has failed to fulfil that obligation. The result has been that the British Liberal Democrats who, in terms of popular support, are the largest Liberal party in the EC, have remained unrepresented in the European Parliament since 1979. In 1984 the SDP-Liberal alliance got 20·1 per cent. of the vote and yet did not win a single MEP.
That has an effect not just on us, but on the Community. For example, at the 1979 election the Conservative group, which then, somewhat euphemistically, called itself the European Democrats and was not at that time involved in the passionate marriage to which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred at some length—

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Conservative party's marriage with the Christian Democrats. In 1979, the Conservative party tried to ally itself with the Christian Democrats, but the Christian Democrats thought that the Tories were far too right wing. The only people who would ally themselves with the Conservative party in the 1979–84 European Parliament were the right-wing Danish neo-fascists. They were the only ones who would keep the Conservative party company.

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is partly correct. To be fair, there were three Danish Conservative MEPs in the Conservative group but they were not exceptionally right wing. The extreme right-wing party of which the hon. Gentleman is thinking is the party of a certain Mr. Glistrop, which was never a member of the Conservative group. It had enough right-wing members from Britain already.
My point is that the group had 63 MEPs. Across Europe, they represented 6·2 per cent. of the vote. The Liberal group got 10·6 per cent. of the vote across Europe, but had only 40 MEPs. That is a gross discrepancy which was directly due to the lack of a proportional system in the United Kingdom. We are the only country in the Community which does not currently use a proportional system for European elections.
There is even an example of proportional representation in the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland which uses the single transferable vote system. That was introduced by a Conservative Government to ensure that the minority did not dominate the majority.

Rev. Martin Smyth: It may have been a slip of the tongue, but that is not what happened. It allowed the minority to dominate the majority and it meant an extra seat given by Garret FitzGerald from the Republic of Ireland's contribution, which would be by proportional representation, and as a result an extra seat went to Germany, France and Italy at that time.

Sir Russell Johnston: I shall not get into the Northern Ireland argument.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: It was a Labour Government who legislated for those elections and the electoral system was chosen on a free vote of the House. It was not in the gift of the Government. This Government, who seek to dominate the House in the present unfair electoral system, understand only the terminology of an electoral coup d'etat.

Sir Russell Johnston: I stand corrected. The hon. Gentleman is right. I made a mistake. The system was introduced by a Labour Government. My point is that proportional representation is operating in a part of the United Kingdom. No one has tried to take it away. This Government have not tried to do so.
Even if one were to accept many of the frequently used criticisms of proportional representation—that it produces unstable government, that small parties have a disproportionate amount of power, that it can ruin the close ties between elected members and their constituents, none of which I accept—none of them applies to elections to the European Parliament.
As is so often the case, the Government and, tragically, still the majority of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen are extending their arguments of national self-interest to


the European debate. The real reason why the Government fail to fulfil their duty under article 138 is that they fear that once they have given in to PR for the European elections their arguments against a similar system for the United Kingdom would become untenable and that it would be the thin end of the wedge.
It was extremely disappointing that on 20 January British Labour MEPs were largely responsible for taking the debate in the European Parliament on the DeGucht proposals off the agenda. Their excuse was that they were awaiting the outcome of the Plant commission. When I asked the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about the matter earlier, he, too, said that he was awaiting the outcome of the Plant commission.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Sir Russell Johnston: The hon. Lady is very beguiling.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Having sat alongside the hon. Member in the European Parliament, I really should get a word in edgeways. He talks about a common system of election throughout the EC. No two European countries operate a similar system; they all have different systems of proportional representation, and all of them hang on to them tenaciously.

Sir Russell Johnston: The common aspect is that they are all proportional, and ours is not.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that the United Kingdom must be the only nation in the Common Market that employs two very different electoral systems?

Sir Russell Johnston: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to draw that to the hon. Lady's attention himself.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Russell Johnston: May I finish the point?
I understand that Labour MEPs will now have to debate the DeGucht proposals on 10 March—a month and a half before the Plant commission's findings are due to be debated by Labour's national executive committee on 28 April—and it will be interesting to see how they come off the fence. I now offer the hon. Member for Hamilton the opportunity to come off the fence.

Mr. Robertson: The decision is taken here, not in the European Parliament. None of the proposals in the Maastricht treaty, and not even those made by the Liberal Democrats, would pass the right to make decisions about elections to the European Parliament. A decision will be taken here. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, should watch more carefully what is said and done here rather than looking to Strasbourg. He makes a perfectly good debating point, given the Liberal party's view on a common electoral system, but, leaving aside the fact that there are no real common electoral systems across the Community, all other Community countries vote on a Sunday. Is it Liberal policy that we should hold elections on a Sunday?

Sir Russell Johnston: The short answer is no, but I do not see what that has to do with it.
It is not true that a decision will be made here, as the hon. Gentleman just said, banging the Dispatch Box; the decision will be taken in the Council of Ministers, acting with unanimity. That is the problem. It would be pretty shameful if the United Kingdom blocked or vetoed a proposal of the European Parliament, and I hope that the Government do not do so.
We have consistently said that Maastricht is no ideal treaty. The majority of its faults are the direct product of the intergovernmentalism that the Government so often state that they favour. Nevertheless, the treaty is a step very much in the right direction, which, if missed now, would have disastrous consequences for the stability of the continent.
We believe that far too much power continues to be vested in the Council of Ministers. The creation of the two intergovernmental pillars—on foreign and security policy and on home affairs and justice, both of which we should have liked to be integrated into the Community—puts more power into the hands of the Council whose members, although nominally responsible to their national parliaments, still meet behind closed doors and can rarely be successfully or forcefully challenged by Back Benchers who scarcely have the time and expertise to follow every detail of Community legislation. The treaty does not do nearly as much as we had hoped to remove the democratic deficit.
9.45 pm
The irony of the Government's approach is that they consistently claim to be taking Europe out of the hands of the bureaucrats, but, at the same time, they give more power to the unaccountable Council of Ministers. The Government are, therefore, putting European Community legislation into the hands of often unelected officials and civil servants who, as we know, draw up negotiations for intergovernmental conferences—IGCs. It is small wonder that the process is increasingly regarded as cynical, complex and remote by ordinary people.
When talking about European Community institutional changes, we should think about not only Maastricht and the advance that it represents but the 1996 IGC set down in article N(2) of the treaty. Further institutional reform will certainly be required by 1996, if not before. An increase in the size of the Community will clearly create a variety of problems. Therefore, it is clear that we need a European Community constitution, which is what the Liberal Democrats called for at our conference last summer. The assize in Rome, referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), was the forerunner. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, I thought that it was a remarkable and inspiring occasion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I very much agree with what the hon. Member said about the dangers of more power going to officials and about the need for a constitution Will he tell the House, and especially the Minister of State, that we were all surprised by the conclusions published following the Edinburgh Council only a short time ago. It stated that the Commission is intending to use its monopoly of the right of initiative by declining to accept requests made by the Council at informal meetings that it makes proposals for directives. When the European Commission is telling the Council that it will not allow it to make proposals for directives, even on an informal basis, there is a danger that officialdom is taking over and that the small amount of


democratic control is being undermined. Will the hon. Gentleman pursue his idea for a constitution, which will prevent the Commission not only going from strength to strength but claiming powers to reject proposals from the Council?

Sir Russell Johnston: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's fears are well founded. He will probably have noted that the Maastricht treaty enables the European Parliament for the first time to have powers of initiative like the Council, which is a positive development.
In conclusion, I make a passing reference to the strange, almost surreal, interchange between the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about federalism. They argued about what Martin Bangemann and Chancellor Kohl did or did not say. I know Martin Bangemann exceedingly well, as I sat with him when he was chairman of the Liberal group in the European Parliament. He is an absolute federalist. When he said what he said, he was merely repeating what he has been saying for many years. With great respect to the Minister of State, I must say that Helmut Kohl is also a convinced federalist. It is no use the Minister wobbling his hand. Mr. Kohl regards federalism as a decentralised form of government. He has said so umpteen times, and I am pretty sure that if one were to read the whole speech from which the Minister picked one wee bit, one would realise that he said so in Edinburgh, too.

Mr. Garel-Jones: If Chancellor Kohl is a federalist, in the sense that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and his party quite honourably and clearly are, why did the Federal Republic of Germany join the United Kingdom and others in blocking the single structure proposal of the Dutch Government, which the hon. Gentleman and his party would have welcomed?

Sir Russell Johnston: I do not think that that means that the Federal Republic is against federalism, or that Helmut Kohl is against federalism. There was a feeling that the Dutch proposals went too far at that time. The Minister is right that that feeling was shared by the British and the Germans, but that does not in any way affect what I have just said—that Helmut Kohl is a convinced federalist. He is. The problem is that the United Kingdom has such a tradition of centralised and unitary government, and of the supposed value of decisive government, which is seen as superior to representative government, that many find it difficult to adjust to, or even properly to understand, the idea of participating in different levels of decision making, each democratically controlled. Yet that has to be the way forward.
Tomorrow's Europe will be a political Europe. In the future it will be more important whether someone is a Christian Democrat, a Conservative, a Liberal or a Socialist than whether he is a Belgian, a Dutchman or a German. Our national identities, language and culture will not be submerged—to say that they will is a complete misreading of reality—any more than the United Kingdom has repressed Scottishness or Welshness, or done away with the assertive regionalism that distinguishes a Yorkshireman or a Devonian. A federal Europe will be open, democratic and pluralist. Maastricht is a step on that road.

Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) made an interesting speech in which he talked about curing the democratic deficit. It is interesting to learn that, although a structure was laid down many years ago, we shall not be able to change it from scratch. When we examine the Commission we discover that it is totally undemocratic—it is appointed by Governments. The European Parliament does its best, but it has little power; it does not initiate legislation.
I shall describe some of the increasing bureaucracy of Europe. I tabulate among the increasing layers of bureaucracy some of the planks that have come into existence, such as the European central bank system and the central bank itself. Those have unlimited power and, as has been said, the individual—and, indeed, people in Governments—will have no right to a say, or to interfere with their verdicts. Those institutions will settle what the exchange rate will be and what monetary policy will be over the course of years—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be anticipating a debate that will take place in about four days' time. We are dealing specifically with the Council, the Commission and the Parliament. The hon. Gentleman may choose any of those, or all of them, but not the central bank.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I was just making a passing reference, Mr. Morris. I thought that it was essential to bring in one or two cardinal points.
Among the other institutions is the Committee of Permanent Representatives, comprising member states and ambassadors to the Community. I appreciate that that may have some connection with article J, so perhaps I should say no more about it. Perhaps I could go on to say that there is also the Political Committee, consisting of political directors advising on common defence and security. That is also covered by article J, and as we have already dealt with that perhaps I should not say any more about it.
Then there is the Co-ordinating Committee on Justice and Home Affairs. There is also the Economic and Social Committee, which, I must emphasise, is totally unelected. Another unelected body is the Committee of the Regions, which has no power but simply makes representations.
The decision-making process in Europe is entrusted to a number of intergovernmental conferences, committees of ambassadors, central banks, Council working parties and other non-elected bodies. Then there will be parallel structures under all national Governments. Looking over the years, one can find no comparison except the regime of the Emperor Diocletian. It is extraordinary that we should have to go back so far to find a parallel.
I listened very carefully to the speeches of hon. Members. I was very impressed by the remarks of an hon. Gentleman who had gone to Brussels and spoken to one or two Commissioners. He was influenced very much by what he heard. Another hon. Member enunciated—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I shall be most grateful if hon. Members pay attention to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I understand the enthusiasm of hon. Members, as we are approaching 10 o'clock. They want to


know whether they are to be kept here for the rest of the evening. If need be, I shall continue after 10 o'clock. Otherwise I can resume on Monday.

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the possibility of our having to stay late into the night. Sitting behind him is the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who has the Adjournment debate and is clutching a large wad of speaking notes. Does the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) imagine that his hon. Friend is preparing to make a speech at half-past midnight?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am not responsible for what my colleagues do or say.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I came into the Chamber to listen with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend. I certainly did not come in for the purpose of delivering my Adjournment speech at this stage, though I am prepared to do so when the opportunity arises.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I have been enlightened.
I was referring to the contention that the European Parliament should be given additional powers, and the Commission made subsidiary to that body. [Interruption.] I hear someone say yes. Do hon. Members realise that the more power we give to the European Parliament, the less power the House of Commons will have? Over a period of about 20 years we shall have seen the demise of something that has been going for more than 630 years.
We must be careful about the course that we set. I am persuaded by hon. Members who have said that one of the great hazards is the possibility of the introduction of a federal system with centralised powers. Although the treaty contains few indications that there will be centralisation to any great extent, we are facing very grave dangers.
I have been given one illustration of that point, but I shall not go further on that other than to say article 3b. I said in an earlier intervention that one of the difficulties experienced is that the provision applies only to a small part of the delegated powers that may be granted. In this case, it would be unwise to say that we shall have anything other than a centralised form of Europe.
In 1996, under article N, we shall have renegotiation. In 1993, we have the Maastricht treaty.
It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report progress.
To sit again tomorow.

Scotprime Sea Foods Ltd.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

10 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I shall take the point of order, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the time that he takes will be taken out of the Adjournment debate.

Mr. Marlow: I understand that many hon. Members are here on a three-line Whip. It is Maastricht business on a Thursday, and we had expected a vote. Have the Government told you why there has not been a vote this evening?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's expectations are clearly not always fulfilled.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I first thank Madam Speaker. I am extremely grateful that she called this debate tonight. I also compliment her on assisting me last week to raise the issue of 23 February and for giving me the chance to highlight the matter with the Prime Minister. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to reply tonight. We are talking not only about fishing or agriculture, both of which are involved, but about a serious disruption to trade with France and with the rest of Europe.
There has been serious interference with our road hauliers. They have tight schedules, and they depend on high rates of vehicle utilisation. That has been disrupted. Our electronic, pharmaceutical and mechanical engineering industries have made late deliveries, and there has been serious disruption. Orders have been lost. That is why it is fitting that the Minister responsible for Scottish industry is here to respond to the debate. He has a good reputation as a great champion of talking up Scottish causes. I hope that he will enhance that reputation tonight.
We are not talking only about Scottish interests. Every producer and every distributor in the United Kingdom who exports and who wishes to take up the European challenge is affected by what has been happening in France in recent years.
The specific incident that brings about the debate is one in which £10,000-worth of Clyde-caught fish was destroyed in a French market. The fish was not for sale in France, but was in transit to German markets. Diesel was spread over it, and it was thrown around the French marketplace. That is disgraceful.
For the company in my constituency, Scotprime Sea Foods, it meant a considerable loss of cash. It also meant that the company failed to meet a customer's order. Perhaps in cash terms that will be made up by their insurers, but the company's reputation will be damaged if it fails to fulfil the customer's requirements.
There is now a fear of repetition, and that leads to another problem. The insurers now refuse to insure that company's produce in transit. That is shameful. How can a small company such as this self-insure? It is enough to wipe it out if there is no cash compensation and no protection from the insurer.
What does it mean to that company? Can it stop trading? It cannot really do so, because the produce keeps coming in. Its suppliers, the Ayrshire fishermen and others, still bring in their catches. That story is common, from the salmon and scallop exporters in the Orkneys to the lobster fishermen and exporters in Cornwall, right through the United Kingdom.
What are the other consequences? Scotprime lost three clients in particular in short order. On 26 February, it was informed by a customer in south-west France that its daily requirement was cancelled for six days. The cost of the loss of exports was £1,500 to £2,000 per day on that contract. That is not a lot perhaps in national terms, but it is a lot to a small firm such as Scotprime.
A southern German client, too, cancelled the weekly delivery; some £10,000 a week was lost. Client No. 3, a Boulogne customer, cancelled an £8,000 order for Saturday 27 February. That was very serious indeed for a small company. This cannot be allowed to be ignored.
Spanish orders were under threat, but, to its credit, the company rescheduled and re-routed. It cost more, but it fulfilled the order.
This is not the first time that Scotprime has suffered in this way. At the end of June or the beginning of July last year, during the lorry drivers' dispute, the company had a lorry trapped for over a week. The cost to it was £30,000. It sought compensation with Euro-Commission assistance. It was informed that it was the responsibility of the Government of France. I wrote to the Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend replied:
The French Government does not intend to pay compensation";
no violence was done to lorries or loads. That is absolutely shameful. There was further advice for hauliers to claim through the French courts. That would have taken years to accomplish, and was totally impracticable.
Last week in the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, when I raised the problems, that officials had already protested. He expected the French Government to pay compensation and safeguard free trade and bring the perpetrators to justice.
I welcomed that statement, but what happened thereafter? Five fishermen were arrested; 500 protested. The five were released and, to my knowledge, they remain uncharged. There was £2·5 million-worth of damage at Rungis market, and no charges have been laid. The Euro-Commissioner has been approached. I have letters from the MEP for the south of Scotland, Alex Smith, demanding redress. What has been the response to date?
There have been promises from the Euro-Commission that minimum price support will be increased and paid to the French fishermen. Vandalism and violence are rewarded, not penalised, in France, it would appear—and with the European Commission's approval. That, once again, is shameful.
There have been other instances. Last week, a ferry was diverted and Brittany Ferries' Roscoff service was cancelled for two days for fear of attack by French fishermen.

Mr. John Ward: The disasters which my hon. Friend is describing are still happening. Is he aware that a British lorry which was travelling by ferry from Poole last night suffered £35,000-worth of damage by French

fishermen in the port of Cherbourg, while the French police stood by and watched? Does he agree that that disgraceful state of affairs is simply continuing?

Mr. Gallie: I suggest that that sort of thing has been going on for many weeks and, indeed, years. It is disgraceful.

Mr. David Harris: My hon. Friend mentioned the disruption to the ferries to Roscoff and other ports. Does he appreciate that that disrupts the sale of fish from the south-west of England and Scotland? Only this week, one of the Newlyn fish merchants warned me that he will have to lay off all his staff if the disruption continues for any length of time.

Mr. Gallie: I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend makes. I sympathise with him and recognise the issues which he has identified.
I shall raise another case in which I think fishermen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) were involved. Last year, British fishermen had their nets cut by French fishermen. To be honest, that equates with acts of piracy.
I recognise the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). We are battling for Rosyth at present. If Rosyth had a maintenance contract for servicing fleet vessels to a greater extent, perhaps we could have sent a gunboat to sort out the problem. Instead, we send letters to the European Commissioners, which does a fat lot of good.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I simply want to record the Labour party's support for the argument which the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is making so clearly on behalf of his constituents and the way in which they have been affected. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press the Minister on the matter.
How much longer must we tolerate such intolerable behaviour towards United Kingdom produce being exported legally within the single European market? How much longer will the French Government allow this sort of anarchy to continue?

Mr. Gallie: I identify totally with the helpful point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Instead of examining the affairs of a good, honest computer company located near the boundaries of my constituency, it would be much more appropriate and better for the Commissioner to examine the actions in France and the objectives of the European ideal.
The problem relates not simply to French fishermen. French farmers have also been at it. Since 1986, they have been attacking and hijacking British agricultural exports. Between June 1990 and February 1992, 16 cases were reported of British lamb—some of it was prime Scottish lamb—being hijacked.

Mrs. Angela Browning: In the south-west, in my constituency of Tiverton, one of my main producers of sheep has suffered the same fate, with animals being burned in the streets of France. It is an absolute disgrace.

Mr. Gallie: I sympathise and agree with my hon. Friend. It is not simply farmers, fishermen and industrialists in the United Kingdom. The problem has grown because people in Spain, Italy, Holland and Belgium have suffered in the same way as in France. Something must be done.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I would not like the hon. Gentleman to overlook the fact that Northern Ireland greatly depends on exporting its agricultural produce. The same thing has happened to lorryloads of Northern Ireland lamb being transported into France. It is time that this entire catalogue of assault on British produce and producers was presented to the European Court for action if necessary.

Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I said that all parts of the United Kingdom had suffered. Northern Ireland is every bit as much a part of the United Kingdom as Wales, Scotland or England. I take the hon. Gentleman's comments as they were given, and accept the points he made. If I reach the end of my speech in the not too distant future, I will address the hon. Gentleman's point about what should happen.
Once again, the French farmers have caused much disruption. Instead of being punished, they have been rewarded. In a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
On 31 August the French Government announced a package of national aid, costing some £120 million, giving immediate help to livestock farmers".—[Official Report, 15 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 760.]
That followed a period of disruption. Once again, that was shameful.
At the end of November 1992, further action was threatened by French farmers. It was cancelled. On that occasion, the French Government promised to veto the general agreement on tariffs and trade oilseed agreement. The threat of violence seemed to work again. Surely that is not what the treaty of Rome or the Single European Act is about.
Last July, a haulier in my constituency, W. and J. Wallace, was trapped for two days in France. He lost a further four days getting out of France on a routine trip. The problem that time was the French lorry drivers. They saw the advantages to the farmers and fishermen and they rolled it over. They decided to follow their example. The French Government recognised the protest and that violence could pay off. They withdrew their proposals to impose regulations on those lorry drivers. Again, that is shameful.
The Road Hauliers Association in the United Kingdom currently has outstanding claims amounting to £325,000 against the French Government for the disruption during June and July last year. The largest claim is for some £27,000, but the figure does not include claims of less than £2,500. The members of that association are small business men. Their assets are their lorries. They need to achieve a high rate of utilisation of their vehicles. They lost two weeks of that utilisation, representing 4 per cent. of their operating time. They cannot afford that. I remind the House that the compensation still has not been paid or acknowledged by the French Government.
What actions are required now? France should be made to comply with articles 30 and 34 of the treaty of Rome to allow freedom of movement of goods within the Community. France must guarantee the safety of our lorry drivers, their vehicles and their cargo. France must compensate those who have lost so much in the past 12 months. It must bring to justice those who have created such mayhem. If it does not, the European Commission must act to ensure that it does. If it lacks the stomach to

do so, the British Government must uphold the spirit of the Common Market. They, not the victims, must take the matter to the European Court or the International Court of Justice. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Tor Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), first, on obtaining this Adjournment debate and, secondly, on what the House will agree was an excellent speech. He has raised an issue of particular importance in his constituency, but, as the attendance of hon. Members on both sides attests, it is a matter of great concern to other areas, including the south coast of England. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), in relation to Northern Ireland, have emphasised that, and I see that my hon. Friend is supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch). I shall not waste the time of the House by remarking on the absence of the Scottish National party—indeed, I am reminded of the Liberal Democrats—from this debate.
This is a matter of great concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr is right when he says that it is not limited to the fishing industry but is a matter of grave concern on more general grounds.
My hon. Friend first raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 February. My right hon. Friend confirmed that we were leaving the French Government in absolutely no doubt that we expect them to act to safeguard free trade, to pay compensation when losses have occurred and to bring the perpetrators to book.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the vandalism that has taken place, first in Roscoff and then in Paris, is totally unacceptable. We have made this plain to the French Government, who have recognised their duty to ensure freedom to trade within the single market. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, that is the fundamental factor which underlines the purpose of having a single market.
I give my hon. Friend the assurance that the United Kingdom Government have been in touch with the French authorities since these difficulties started. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs spoke to the French Foreign Minister on 24 February to impress upon him the seriousness of the situation and to ask the French authorities to restore public order and allow the resumption of free trade in fish and fish products. My hon. Friend the Fisheries Minister has similarly been in touch with his ministerial counterpart.
Our Paris embassy has been in regular touch with the appropriate authorities in France. Our own Fisheries Department officials, including the Scottish Office's fisheries secretary, met their French opposite numbers today in London, and again made very clear to the French Government how seriously we view recent developments
Our officials made it clear, in particular, that they were carefully monitoring continuing incidents perpetrated by French fishermen and, as my hon. Friend has told the House, that these are quite unacceptable. They made the point that the cost to the British fishing industry is not restricted to particular cargoes of fish which have been


damaged or denied access to the French market, but extends also to all those other fishermen and fish merchants who are unable to send fish to France because they are afraid of the consequences, or because their insurers will not cover them, or for other reasons related to the present disorder among French fishermen.
The French Fisheries Ministry has taken on board these complaints, and noted in particular that further instability in the British fish market—which is a clear and likely consequence of the French actions—is itself likely further to damage the market and prices in France.
In particular, we have asked the French Government to establish, without delay, arrangements to assure the safety of lorries and cargoes from the United Kingdom, where notice of their arrival is given. I can tell the House that the initial response of the French Government to this request has been encouraging, and I very much hope that such arrangements can be put in place quickly.

Mr. Morley: I appreciate the action which the Minister has been outlining about what the Government has done about this problem, but, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), this has been going on for some time, and there have been many such incidents. I wonder whether he would comment on that. If the French Government take no action to protect our exports, our Government should refer the matter to the European Court and seek appropriate redress, because the French are in breach of the Single European Act.

Mr. Stewart: We need quick redress, and that is what we intend to get from the French Government. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with that. If that were not to happen, we might need to have recourse to the European institutions, but I hope that the French Government will ensure the safe passage of our exports.
My hon. Friend mentioned compensation. Companies affected by the disturbance in Paris who wish to seek compensation should write initially to the local police at Rungis to seek a police statement of the incident. This can then be followed up with claims to the local prefecture. My officials of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department at Pentland house in Edinburgh would be happy to provide details and advice to Scottish businesses which believe they have a claim to compensation. Similar arrangements apply regarding the trouble at Roscoff.
I know that many companies have been disappointed that they have not received compensation for losses incurred during the strike by French lorry drivers last year to which my hon. Friend referred, but initial soundings with the French Government suggest that it may be easier to obtain compensation over the recent incidents.
My hon. Friend expressed particular concern about the destruction of a consignment of fish from Scotprime Sea Foods at the Rungis market in Paris. I know that Scotprime has an excellent record in exporting Scottish produce. This was recognised last year by its receiving the Queen's award for export achievement. That was a fine performance by a company in Ayrshire which was established only a few years ago.
I appreciate that exports to France, and through France, are of particular importance to Scotprime. The recent actions of French fishermen are a problem that the company should not have to face, and must be particularly unwelcome after last year's difficulties during the French lorry drivers' strike. Although I know that efforts are still being made by various organisations to secure compensation for losses incurred during that strike, regrettably such efforts have been unsuccessful so far.
In the few minutes that remain, may I bring the House up to date? Unquestionably, the situation in France continues to cause grave concern. As was mentioned earlier in the debate, there was a further incident last night at Cherbourg. Early reports suggest that the fish involved had been landed into Scotland by French fishermen and were being transported to France by an English company. French fishermen were therefore destroying fish which had been caught against their own quota. The value of the fish has been estimated at £55,000. Some French fishermen seem to be totally out of control, and the French Government must act to restore order.
Scottish industry has an enviable record in exporting to Europe. Fishing is no exception. Indeed, fishing and fish farming are not only in a dominant position within the United Kingdom but are recognised as major players in the European scene. I hope that Scottish businesses will continue to take the initiative in exporting fish to the French market. I congratulate my hon. Friend and give him the assurance that the Government will do everything possible to protect their right to do so.

Mr. Harris: Before my hon. Friend sits down, will he take a point that was brought out by the Cherbourg incident? British exporters are afraid to use British transport because it is immediately set upon by the thugs in France.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the assurance that we have from the French Government about convoying will be of assistance in meeting the legitimate concerns to which my hon. Friend refers.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.